Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Questions 1-43: Vessel and Krehlic.

Posted on: February 1, 2007 - 7:27pm

RhadTheGizmo

Posts: 1191

Joined: 2007-01-31

Offline

Questions 1-43: Vessel and Krehlic.

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers.I will try to reference the Bible as little as possible and just give possible answers.. since that is all that is required-- I'm not trying to prove my religion just disprove the claim that these questions have no answers and that they somehow show religious beliefs to be irrational.

I'm only half way through at the moment. I need to go to sleep.. got class in the morning. Oh. And rationality is the practice of reason. Reason is using, and holding, non-contradictory basis for a certain belief. I have my (what I believe to be) non-contradictory basis for my beliefs as well as you, yours. We are both rational. I am a member of the Rational Responders Squad.

Now for the game of logic to being. As well as perhaps opening of my eyes or yours as to how ignorant we both are.

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois TremblaySome did and some did not-- was it necessary according to older testament prophecy that all hebrews accept the Messiah? In fact I'm pretty sure the opposite is true (the opposite being 'not all' not 'none.&#39

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?Why hasn't the missing link been found? We are, of course, assuming that the flaming sword is in fact still there.. I don't believe there is any reference in the Bible the eternality of a physical sword.

3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel GuyProven is used pretty lightly here. If by proven you mean that the earliest, scientifically dated fossils of a human species was discovered in Africa, okay-- then perhaps. But.. 100 years ago it was not 'proven' that humans originated in Africa.. nor 400 years ago that the earth was round-- so please, lets wait another 10,000 years before we claim scientific 'proof'. Oh.. and as for the lack of an exact replica of the geographically described area in the Bible. My response: Pangea doesn't exist either, are we discounted the possibility of a geographically changing earth?

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]You're assuming the belief in a Hell is essential to the Christian belief. Not so.. Most Christian denominations essential dogmas is that Jesus saves rather than God punishes. Ask most Christians which one of those beliefs is of upmost importance to them.. or essential to them. I would guess that it is more likely the former. Currently many denominations do not believe in idea of everlasting hellfire burning sinners forever. Want more explanation on this idea?

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]Love is reactionary? But I digress... I'm assuming you refer to the many instances in the Bible in which human writers describe God. Projection perhaps? An in the cases where it is a quote accredited to God himself, well.. I would only use this conditional statement. If God is real, and all those things you mention, would he be better trying to describe himself using the ideas and terminology of his level or that of a lower life form? I suppose the same thing can be exampled by a Professor of Quantum Physics talking with a 9 year old kid. Reasonable answer?

6. Why would God create a place such as hell to torture sinners forever when he foreknew who would disappoint him? - IG [Note: Some say you have a choice, but this misses the point. If God hates sin so much, why create Adam and Eve when he knew they'd sin? The only conclusion I can come up with, if Yaweh exists, is that he wanted sin to enter the world.]Look to the answer 4 for a half response to the rest I would say only this: I disagree with use of the word hate, but I'll continue answer. People shouldn't have kids. How can it be love to birth a human being into such a world? Where they are most guarenteed to disappoint you at some point? You might contend that God is all knowing, perfect 'forsight,' however, I would present this possibility.. at somepoint let us say that a perfect form of genetic prediction comes into being in which you can predict the intelligence, physical condition, and even 'social utility'.. abort all babies that don't meet up to the highest standards, more or less loving? In other words.. does one have kids, 'create' as it were, so that those kids will succeed in the way they want, or is it to give life?

7. "God is all merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet, since he's all-knowing, not allow them to be born at all? - IGON GOD'S LOVE & HELL1.) God's love is superlative.2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical.5.) See answers 4 and 6.

8. Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Each prayer includes a variety of ritualism and posturing. If a muslim astronaut were to land on Mars. Prayer to Mecca would be ritualistically impossible due to the rotation of Earth and Mars. Are Muslims stuck here in Earth? IG [Note: Since this was first posted, a Muslim astronaut was faced with this very dilemma. The authoritative clergy informed him to pray as he normally would. I see this no where in the Koran. You see? Religions must change, or die out. It's interesting to note that, in the Koran, the moon is believed to be in the lowest Heaven, the level for those that barely made it to Heaven. Surah 71:15-16. One problem, no man can supposedly get to Heaven until they die. Yet, we've been to the moon. Our satellites beyond that.]Let's wait until we get to Mars. As for defending the Muslim fair-- I cannot, for, I am not Muslim-- but perhaps they have some answer.

9. Why haven't we seen God reattach severed heads, restore someone who was burned alive or regrow amputated limbs? Surely these would be miracles difficult to deny. - Adam Majors and IG [Note: The typical answer is that man doesn't dictate God's actions. The conundrum here however is that, if God wants us to "know" him, then surely feats such as those mentioned above would be happening all over the world. Until they do, I'll remain an atheist.]You're assuming, for one, that miracles will equate to conversion, or perfect belief in God-- yet, even in the Bible there is testament to the idea that this may not be the case. Forgive me for using the Bible in this case.. but I must, seeing as it's one of the few places that miracles exist, and the only place that is relevant to me answering these questions. Judas betrayed Jesus even though he had witness miracles.. as well as Isrealites continually rebelled against God even though they were witness to miracles. That's fine that you believe that miracles equate to conversion of the relevant kind, but I just mean to say, this is not necessarily the case.. since, well, there haven't been miracles in my time-- neither, do I believe, should they be the basis for faith.

10. Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't he do it himself? - IG [Note: Surely God would have known that not everyone would be convinced by the reality[sic] of his Bible. If God loves us so much, we are all going to Heaven. If God knew that I would be an atheist, and he doesn't like atheists, he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence. But he did. Therefore, I must be serving the will of God, for I exist. Smiling]See answers 4 and 6.

Furthermore, if indeed this world, is as some theologians believe, a universal example of the effects of sin-- an experiment in sin as it were-- started by a challenge of the Devil to God, a challenge which was in essence life would be better this way than that, then so be it. In this experiment people choose to be people of truth, love, and right, or not. At the end of time, if the belief of some Christians be right, then God will have the choice to bring people into Heaven-- I personally believe that his decision will be more yours then his. Yes, he loves all, and so it's only a matter of whether at the end of time whether you wish to spend the rest of existence with God or be wiped from existence.

A type of absolute Euthanasia as it were.

As for the spreading of his word.. why not do it himself. Even a scientist keeps his experiment affecting actions to a designated minimum until it reaches it's proper time to bring it to an end-- otherwise he risks destroying the purpose of the experiment in the first place.

Furthermore x2, these 'what if God X' are questions that assume that God exists. In the case of these questions.. I would seriously ask. 'If God exists in the sense that he is omniscient and all those other things, what do you know that he doesn't about what would be best or most likely to bring about the salvation of our eternal souls?"

Of course this presumes that he is interested in these sort of things.

Now it would be a legitimate to ask a question, "If God is X, then why would he do Y." Such as the question of hell of eternal punishment and coinciding that with the idea of a loving God (Biblical concept)-- that's a tough thing to do. I could use the same answer I gave for this one.. however, the concept of eternal punishment for temporal sins is so contradictory to me when related to a loving God.. that I probably wouldn't.

11. In II Kings 2-23/24 we read about God sending 2 she-bears to attack children for calling the prophet Elisa bald, which he was, the bears killed 42 of the children. Was this a good thing to do? -- Brandon and IG[Note: I have heard some argue that the boys were a gang. So?! I didn't read anywhere in that passage where they laid a finger on the guy . Also, what kind of bears are these that can kill 42 kids? Super Bears? Surely the kids had to be running away.]This one would probably require the longest response.. so if you still need a response at the end of all these questions-- just say. "SEE 11" And I'll get back to it.

12. I have often heard from many believers that even Satan has a presence in the church, which is why even in church people can still have impure thoughts. If Satan can find his way in the church, how do Christians know that Satan didn't find his way into the Bible and twist the whole book? After all, men did vote on which books would make the Holy Bible. - The Infidel GuyChurch is made up of people. Book is made up of paper. At some particular moment in time you may find a church that's laymen have no impure thoughts at that moment, however, probably wouldn't last for very long... it's temporary. As for the Bible, it would only require a certain, large, yes, amount of individual moments to get the pages written down-- then, the book is removed from time. The fact that those people who wrote it were sinners, filled with impure and imperfect thoughts, does not change the fact that they could have had independent moments of divine inspirations at a particular moment in time. Same for those men who voted for those books to institute into what is now known as the Holy Bible.

13. Why did God allow Lot and his daughters to escape from Sodom and Gomorra when he destroyed it only to later have Lot and his daughters engage in incestuous fornication. (Genesis 19:30-36) - Disillusioned [Note: To have intercourse with daddy dearest of course.]God leads.. he doesn't control. I'm not sure the representation of a imperfect man being imperfect does anything. I'm not sure I see condoning of the action within the verses.. only that it happened.

14. Genesis 1:28-29 shows that man and all the animals were first created herbivorous. Most young-earth Christians (ones that believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old) say that the fall of man resulted in carnivorous animals ( hence death of animals). So, why did God punish the animal kingdom, making animals kill and devour each other because of man's mistake? Or, if you're an old-earth Christian (one that accepts that animals existed on earth for billions of years before man came on the scene) then how come fossils show carnivorous animals existed before man? - http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/contact.htm.Hm. Not sure what I believe in this case. Would I be fine with the idea that death occurred before the fall of man? Hm. Probably. Adam was immortal for a time because of his connection with God, not because of any sort of intrinsic characteristic. If animals had this same relationship also, then yes, their would seem to be some sort of oddity with the idea that animals were immediately punished for Man's sin. However, even as now the animal kingdom is affected by the actions of man (a member of the kingdom), so I would see no reason why it wouldn't be the same back then. I have no problems with the idea that animals adapted within their own species to a new world of limited resources.. therefore developing into carnivorous animals over time through means of natural selection.

As for the idea that carnivorous animals existed before man.. once again, I admit that you may be right and I maybe wrong (actually I think this might be the first time I said it).. but consider for a moment my answer to number 3.

I'm not saying that all geological science is wrong, just that it isn't as absolute as some state it to be. It is a theory created to coincide with facts, not a fact unto itself. Such as.. a coin on the table here. There is a coin on the table: Fact. I put it there: Theory. My roommate put it there: Theory.

15. Many Christians believe that God is a thinking being, that he solves problems and makes a way for them when troubles come. Does God Think? If God is thinking, did he know his thoughts before he thought them? If so, again, where is his freewill and how is God thinking at all if everything seems to be one uncontrollable action/thoughts. - The Infidel Guy [Note: I'd say a God cannot think at all. To do so, would strip him of omniscience. Thinking is a temporal process.] ON GOD'S ATEMPORALITY1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.[Note: I guess I should also note here that a timeless being would be without the proposition of past, and future. But to be omniscient, God must know the past and future. Hence a God that is atemporal and omniscient cannot logically exist. Smiling]I believe that this question might be ignoring the possibility that the concept of atemporal means something other then what he is presuming it means. I don't know the scientific concept of atemporal, or even if it can be scientific, but.. I can use semantics. Atemporal is likened to amoral, without time, without morals. Without morals does not mean that the individual being described by the word amoral does not exist within a moral world, rather that he is not self-restricted by morals. Likewise, atemporal does not mean that the individual is not existent within a temporal world, rather that he self-restricted by time. Time is a measurement between two points. We say an hour because it's six minutes, we say minutes because it's the number of degrees the earth rotates in a given amount of "time."

If God is eternal, with no beginning, and predictably without end, then he is arguably atemporal, without time. For his existence cannot be measured.. but not that he does not have an effect on the given state of the world in our time. (Once again, my understanding of time.)

16. I have often heard that faith is all that is neccessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true. If this is true aren't all supernatural beliefs true since they also require "faith"? - IG ON FAITH1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.3.) All Faiths are true.[Note: Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, "Faith" is how one knows God.]No. How did this question even make the list?! 1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith as true.3.) Nothing.

Your two premises do not lead to a deduction of any kind. 1 and 2 in this case do.1.) All tennis players are women.2.) Alice is a woman.3.) Alice is a tennis player.

My head just hurts with this one... to accept as true and to be true are two exclusive things. I have no problems with saying that a Muslim has faith in his Faith, and that *can be sufficient means for him to accept his Faith as true. Does that make it true? No. Neither does my faith make mine true.

So don't make invalid deductions just because..1.) Pills are good for you.2.) Pills are made by doctors.3.) The horse jumped over the moon.

Beh.. this one makes me a bit irked.

17. Why didn't God just kill Adam and Eve after the Fall and start from scratch? Actually, if God is all-knowing wouldn't he know that man would need to be killed eventually anyway, (the biblical flood)? Why create Adam and Eve at all? - [email protected] and [email protected] ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN1.) God is omniscient (all-knowing).2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.[Note: If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?]This one seems to be a rehash of an earlier one. If I'm incorrect.. get back to me. See answers 7 and 10.

18. If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies? - IG ON SPIRITS1.) Spirits are not physical entities.2.) Brains are physical entities.3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]How are we talking about the rules of a non-physical entity? What.. can you tell me in one case that a non-physical entity could not be restricted into a physical entity? or one that did? Non-physical is the much the same as saying supernatural.. meaning, indescribable with natural or physical terminology.

Futhermore, the concept of a Spirit is universal among Christian denominations. Some believe it to be a conscious thing living inside of you, some others believe it to be a non-conscious poetic idea of Life given by God, that returns to him upon death. Both of these interpretations have basis in biblical theology.

19. Does God know his own future decisions? If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else. For that would mean that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, he can't even think if this is the case. Since he can't DO anything, he might as well not exist. - IG ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness1. If God exists, then he is immutable.2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. DrangeI would contend that God's unchangingness resides in his loving nature. That is where my faith resides-- one in his character. In much the same way that I have *faith in my doctor to do what is good even though I do not fully comprehend the mechanisms which he uses. Such as... sticking a knife into me and taking out a part of my body (e.g. appendix).

As for this attempt at deductive logic.1.) Agreed.2.) Agreed.3.) Not agreed. The important concepts of this are under what contexts we understand immutable. To say that at one point I have an intention and at the next I no longer have that intention, is in fact a change of intention, then so be it. But I would have to disagree. For instance. If my intention at a particular moment is to create.. and therefore I create a soapbox, does this mean that my intention was never to create? or never to create a soapbox? No. Tis true that I might not choose to create another soapbox.. but so be it, it is not a change of character.

Immutableadjective1.) not subject or susceptible to change or variation in form or quality or nature.

To say that God's intention to create the universe is his nature, or form, or quality is not reasoned in your logical progression.

Think of it this way.1.) If a doctor is a good doctor, he looks for the best interests of his patients.2.) If a patient is sick and a doctor can help, he will.3.) If a doctor helps a patient then at a later time he will not help that patient.4.) Doesn't matter.5.) Doesn't matter.6.) There for the doctor is not a doctor.

Albeit I'm attempting to use logic in all these cases to contest other logical propositions.. I do not mean to imply that logic is a cure all in and of itself. My reason for this is that there are many cases in which logic just fails to explain things.. these are known as paradoxes. For instance: The Arrow Paradox.

20. If God is all-knowing, how could he be disappointed in His creation? -- [email protected] [Note: Indeed, wouldn't God know that before the creation of our Universe what creatures would disappoint him? That being the case why create those creatures at all? Also, in knowing absolutely the behavior of humans before creation, God cannot be disappointed either... for this world is exactly as he has planned it to be. If it's not, why create us at all?]See Answer 5.

Disappointed adjective1.) depressed or discouraged by the failure of one's hopes or expectations.

I hope and expect that my father will act honorably-- even though I know that he will not always live up to my expectations and hopes. I will be disappointed if ever he acts contrary.

21. God struck down the Tower of Babel angry at the intent of the people that built them, if this is the case, many of the great pyramids ( which are bigger than any ziggurat) around the world should be rubble also, yet many still stand today. Were not the Egyptians and many other ancient pyramid builders reaching toward God /The Heavens? - IG [Note: In actuality, many of the Pharaoh's believed that, via their pyramids, they would become God's themselves.]The conditions necessary for life beginning from abiological substances (a theory of science) require different conditions then are now existent. Thus the same principal can be applied to explain why at one time an action was deemed necessary and another time not. The only thing that would need to be established in this scenario is the disparity of time and conditions between the building of the tower of babel and pyramids.

Also.. what do ziggurats have to do with the Tower of Babel? If the biblical story is true, then the culture existent at the time would, could, be considerably different then any culture that created the ziggurats or pyramids. Much taller perhaps? But thats a side note.

22. In the watchmaker analogy, a watch is used to show us intelligent design and compares that to the Universe as evidence of design. We know watches are designed because we have past experience with watches, as well as with other man made objects. My question is: What Universe is the Intelligent Design proponent using to compare this Universe with to draw such an analogy? What God did he see create a Universe? - IGI don't agree with this analogy in the first place. In infinite time infinite space.. the watch could have been made as we see it now. You through a bunch of stuff into a tornado.. infinite time. All things become zero... mathematically speaking-- which, in the case of a Godless world, everything would be brought down to.

23. Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did He bother? - PhineasBg [Note: A good example of how quickly sin returned, was Noah getting drunk just after they discovered land.]See Answers 10 and 12. Put them together.

24. If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing? - keyser soze [Note: Why were the trees there in the first place? Of course they love to throw the serpent into the equation. But ummm..who let the serpent into the Garden?... and why would God create such a creature knowing he would cause man's fall? Hmm.. God must have wanted the fall to happen.]See Answer 10. If not here, then somewhere. (I'm not one to believe in only one instance of creation, here Earth. It would seem somewhat illogical that God would create all this space and only one earth like planet. I do however believe that we were the only ones to fall. It needed to happen somewhere in my belief, and if it didn't happen here, then this exact conversation would be happening somewhere else.

I think its sort of ingrained into human nature to be curious. A child touches fire even though his parent tells him not to.. so on. In this case.. what was unknown was the knowledge of good and evil. So be it. Now we know to some extent.. although.. I'm sure we haven't carried it out to it's full conclusion.

25. Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient? - [email protected] ON THE BODY OF CHRIST1.) God?s flesh was known as Jesus.2.) Flesh cannot enter into Heaven (according to Paul)3.) God is no longer Jesus.4.) Jesus doesn?t exist.(Note: Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem.However, if Jesus ?is? God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead.)1.) Agreed.2.) Hm.. need a verse but, I'll tentatively agree.3.) Where did this come from?4.) And this?I don't understand the structure of this.

See question 10 as well as 5 (applications of emotions and 'wrath&#39

Coupled with this: I can only speak of my own theology which some denominations hold. And I will now be speaking with a religious tone. The plan of salvation was not so much to send Christ here to earth to die, but rather to send him here to live. Through his life people understood God in a new way as well the extent to which God loved, and the lengths to which he would go to be with his people, his creation. At a particular moment in time, mainly the Roman Empire, the advent of Christ was able to spread quickly. The death of Christ may have been for seen from the beginning, thus reason to be placed into older testament prophecy, however, this was not the purpose of Christ.

If it was.. then the question could become more potent by asking-- if the purpose of Christ was to die for our sins, why didn't he do it at the age of 5? or 10? or.. whatever?

26. After 9/11 a lot of people have been tossing around " god bless america". Why do they keep saying this? From the looks of it god hasn't blessed anything. If god had blessed america, the 9/11 event would've never happened. Theists seem to give the answer of "everything is part of gods big plan". If everything is part of gods big plan, why are we after Bin Laden? Wasn't he and other terrorists just carrying out gods desired plan? So it seems that Bin Laden/ terrorism isnt our enemy, but god . - [email protected] [Note: Unfortunately many religious nuts believe they are fulfilling their God's plan by going to war.]Lots of people say "part of God's plan" without considering the implications they are making. Perhaps they do mean it in the way you are inferring, perhaps they don't. Me personally, I don't. When I say this I do not mean that every particular instance is part of God's plan, but rather the situation we are in is. For instance, consider question 10 again. If we are indeed an 'experiment,' then this is part of a plan, even as an experiment is a plan of a scientist. It does not mean that every instance within the experiment was hoped for, or drawn out beforehand by the scientist, only that the experiment has it's limitations it's restrictions, but everything else is led to chance.

Even so this.

As for the "God Bless America".. I'm not sure I understand your contention. To say "God Bless something" is not to say that God has blessed something.. or that he will.. or that he ever has.

(My personal opinion is that he has-- in so much that all good things come from him, in as much as all warmth (feeling) comes from heat (scientific description of energy).)

27. Christians say that God is NOT the author of confusion. Can you say, Tower of Babel? - The Screaming MonkeysChristians say? Does not mean true. If there is some biblical basis for this belief that he is not the author of confusion.. then so be it, I will address now: Evil things happen in the space that exists between God and the absence of God. If confusion did in fact happen at this point at time, it does not mean that God directly created it by a snap of his finger.. but *could merely mean that he pulled away his presence at the behest of a nation who was unwilling to trust him (that unwillingness expressed through the production of the tower).

But in any case, it has to be reasoned through the Bible how God is not, or cannot be, the creator of confusion. Or how somehow confusion is contradictory to some fundamental aspect of God's immutable character.

28. If Noah's flood supposedly covered the earth for a year, regardless of whether or not all the animals could fit on the ark, what the heck happened to all the plants? Can you imagine a cactus surviving under 4 miles of water for a year? I can't either! - Kyle Giblet [Note: With God all things are possible. Oh wait, except in Judges 1:19.]*Worldwide flood is not a necessary premise for the belief in God.

However I will try and address it anyways. Wait.. no, I can't.. unless somehow the building blocks of plant species were included in the ark, seeds mainly. Earlier time, smaller species diversification.

Good question though.

29. The highest rainfall ever recorded in a 24 hour period was 47inches in the Reunion Islands in 1947 (during a severe tropical storm). To cover the whole earth to a depth of 5.6 miles, and cover the mountain tops (i.e. Mount Everest), it would need to rain at a rate of 372 (three hundred and seventy two) inches per hour, over the entire surface of the earth. Can rain fall at such an astronomical rate? Where did all the water come from?? Where did it all go to??? And would not the dynamics of the earth be so out of balance (tides etc.) that the earth would become so unstable that it would wobble off into outer space???? - [email protected]See Answer 28.

Wow.. thats a huge amount of rain in 24 hours. That would've been sweet to be there. Um.. secondly, see Answer 21. Time changes all. Tis true. The world pre world-wide flood might have been hugely different geographically then now. A huge amount of water dumped on the earth would indeed create valleys as well as the corresponding mountains as water slowly soaks into unsaturated terrain. Think.. erosion, except on a grand scale. Water from below, water from above. Arguments based on the believe that pre-flood and post-flood worlds were exactly the same, or even similar is difficult to make.

So let me say this. If the world now, oceans and all, is exactly how it was before the flood.. then yes-- I wouldn't not be able to rationalize a worldwide flood (assuming that your assumptions about wandering off into space are correct-- and that water, cannot, in fact fall at 372 inches, or that 372 inches is necessary scientifically, to cover this world, in this time.)

30. What do Muslim women get in Paradise? - IG [Note: Some Muslims I have interviewed about this say that Muslim women will get the same thing men get or equal value. Smiling Oh really? So Muslim women will get 72 virgin men? lol. If Muslim men get 72 virgins, where are all these virgin women coming from? What of their freewill? Is Allah creating these women to be slaves to the men in Paradise?]Not a Muslim. Can't answer.

31. In the "Last Days" Jesus is supposed to appear in the clouds. How are the Christians on the opposite end of the world going to see him? Are there going to be millions of Jesus'? What about people that work underground? What about people in deep space? - [email protected]Um.. I ask you-- if Jesus comes in the last days, in the clouds, are you really going to care about how it happens? The mere fact that a supernatural being is floating down from the sky is happening would seem to imply that the very rules of nature are not applicable anymore.

Furthermore, I don't presume to claim as absolute my understanding of the second coming based of biblical interpretations in fact true-- only that he will come, and every eye shall see.

32. The Bible says that God is a jealous God . How is this an example of a moral absolute of which man is supposed to follow? - IG ON GOD`S JEALOUSY1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:43.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.(NOte: Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is.)However, I find it difficult to address an argument that presumes that the language of both the older testament and the newer testament should coincide perfectly. I would apply my answer to 5 to this question with regards to Exodus 20:5. As for the evidence stated in 1 and 2 I say, yes.

33. A true Muslim man is not supposed to do anything that the prophet Muhammad didn't do. If one remembers there was a big debate over whether or not Muslims should eat Mangos. If this is true, why in the Hell were these Islamic Fundamentalists flying airplanes? - IGNot a Muslim. Wow.. these questions are higher weighed against Christians. Muslims are lucky.

34. If the earth was covered by a complete global flood, every living creature killed except those surviving on the ark, why are there many completely unique animal species in Australia that are found no where else indigenously on the earth? - [email protected]See Answer 28.

But once again I will address for those who would wish to believe in a worldwide flood.

Evolution. Natural Selection. Diversification. Extinction.

I have no problems believing in these things.. even as the bible does not. Evolution within species as been tested time and time again.. and seems to be an accurate description of how things are. However, cross species diversification has not been (to my knowledge).

35. If god is omniscient and " god is love," why would he allow a child to be conceived, knowing that that child would one day reject him and spend eternity burning in a lake of fire?- TiredTurkeyProdWhy is this answer being asked over and over again? I mean.. I guess I understand why. But I will address again. See Answer 4, 6, and 10.

36. Revelations is supposed to take place on Earth. What if we colonize the moon or Mars or inhabit a self-sustaining space station? Do we escape "judgement"? -- Ray Sommers [Note: No we don't Ray... and of course we all know that if there is any intelligent life out there besides us, they are all going to Hell too. Eye-wink]Let's wait until we colonize the moon and then I will get back to this one.

37. Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?- IGTo sanctify (theological term meaning to make holy, holy meaning-- to set aside) a day in which ones should rest. Lead by example I always say.

38. Everytime I go to a funeral the preacher and guests always say that " God " has called that person to Heaven or they say, " God said it was time to come home", or some such variation. If God is calling these people "home", why are we putting the murderers of these victims in prison? How can we punish a man or woman for doing God's will? - IGHm. Interesting question. Of course. This seems to be a legal one as well. If you do God's will this does not mean that the state cannot still punish you, or that its duty is to punish you depending on their respective laws.

However... once again I state. Just because a Christian, even a pastor, states something as if he knew God's mind, doesn't not mean that he is fact speaking God's mind.

I don't agree with this concept of death.

See Answer 26 for more.

39. Does God have a gender? In most churches, God is predominately referred to as a "he"? - IG [Note: The Bible says God is male, but what does this mean? Does God have a penis? Does he have hormones that dictate his gender? Smiling]See Answer 5.

If he were something other than a man or a woman.. how exactly would he go about explaining that to a human being? Any thoughts? Perhaps when you figure out how to tell a fish he's wet-- then you can get back to me.

40. Why can't we wait until we get to Heaven to worship God? Why would it be too late? - IGAnother great question. Hm.. let me ponder.

I can't claim to be right on my rationale.. but of course-- all these questions need is a rational response.

So here is mine.

Perhaps because those who do not to choose to worship God, or whatever measures one must do to attributes of morality they must have in order to be in heaven, will not wish for those things even in Heaven.

I would liken it to this.. for me, personally, I have no interest in serving Hilter, no interesting in learning his ways, no interest whatsoever in coming into closer communion with him-- if it turns out that Hitler is God... I would have a tough time say.. 'Yah, okay Hitler, take me to heaven.. let me see you point of view.'

41. What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already? - IG ON PRAYER1.) Humans can?t change God?s mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)Prayer doesn't change God, it changes me. paraphrased from C.S. Lewis writings. If it is only for emotional comfort.. then so be it. Even Jesus (once again I go to the Bible) prayed to God for a change in the plan, but even he submitted to how things needed to be. Some people pray for deliverence from challenges.. others just for strength. Think self-hypnotism.

42. Some say Jesus was the all-knowing God. Jesus would have known then that when he died he'd be in heaven in less than 3 days to rule. If Jesus is alive and ruling today, what did he sacrifice? -- Cyndy HammondHm. Go ask Bill Gate to give all that he has and to go live in the poorest nation of Africa.. and that if he does that for 33 years-- he'll get back all that he had in the first place. "Now.. times that by infinite and take it to the depths forever and you'll barely have a glimpse." Second part quoted from Meet Joe Black.. a film.

43. God knows that men are sinners, untrustworthy and evil, why does God leave it up to fallible man (clergy..etc) to teach others about his word? Why would he put our eternal souls at risk if he loves us so much? - The Infidel Guy and Danno778See Answer 10.

Naw. It actually seems like it would be pretty hard to do. Perhaps this is because I'm on a Mac but the 'edit' menu for my original post doesn't give me the option to change the color of text as easily as it did when I originally posted it.

I apologize.

I actually thought red would be easier than a white color since it's easily distinguishable from white.

Copy and paste into a text editor?

If it proves to be a huge problem I'll change it in the morning when I wake up.. or later in the afternoon.

There's a a lot to go through here, but I have some questions and comments about your answer to #4.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

You're assuming the belief in a Hell is essential to the Christian belief. Not so.. Most Christian denominations essential dogmas is that Jesus saves rather than God punishes.

What then is Jesus saving us from? If I'm not going to be punished, why should I care about Jesus at all?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Ask most Christians which one of those beliefs is of upmost importance to them.. or essential to them. I would guess that it is more likely the former. Currently many denominations do not believe in idea of everlasting hellfire burning sinners forever. Want more explanation on this idea?

It is true that Christians have de-emphasized the hell bit. I think this is a modern trend in response to secular ethics. This is a case of Christians changing their beliefs to make it more palatable to the current moral climate. While I have no problems with change, Christians who jettison hell have, IMHO, no claims to absolute truth anymore because they're making their beliefs relative to the culture they're in.

I'm going to start going through some of these - at least the first few. I don't have a problem with many of them, but just find them simply irrelevant.
I may go on and address some more later.

Quote:

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay
Some did and some did not-- was it necessary according to older testament prophecy that all hebrews accept the Messiah? In fact I'm pretty sure the opposite is true (the opposite being 'not all' not 'none.'Eye-wink

Irrelevant. In fact, if the Bible said that all the Jews recognized Jesus as the Messiah, I would be pointing it out as ridiculous.

Quote:

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?
Why hasn't the missing link been found? We are, of course, assuming that the flaming sword is in fact still there.. I don't believe there is any reference in the Bible the eternality of a physical sword.

True, there is no mention of eternity, but are angels not eternal? Even if the Garden of Eden disappeared or grew wild or whatever, along with the tree of life, and there was no longer a need for the Cherubim and it's flaming sword, you would think it would take time. There is no mention of the cherubim and the flaming sword again after Gen 3:24.
Another thought - do you not find it odd that the cherubim had a flaming SWORD? A tool/weapon that would not have even existed during this time if the Bible were true. Why would the physical manifestation of one of God's angels be wielding a human weapon that hadn't even been invented? The writer of the story was obviously familiar with swords.

Quote:

3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel Guy
Proven is used pretty lightly here. If by proven you mean that the earliest, scientifically dated fossils of a human species was discovered in Africa, okay-- then perhaps. But.. 100 years ago it was not 'proven' that humans originated in Africa.. nor 400 years ago that the earth was round-- so please, lets wait another 10,000 years before we claim scientific 'proof'. Oh.. and as for the lack of an exact replica of the geographically described area in the Bible. My response: Pangea doesn't exist either, are we discounted the possibility of a geographically changing earth?

You are arguing that we cannot trust in scientific evidence because it hasn't been around as long as the Bible? Evidence is evidence, something that the Bible lacks. You suggest waiting 10,000 years to claim proof. I'd say science is much further down that road than religion. After all, according to the Bible the earth is 6,000 years old. So, theists have made no progress in the realm of proof since the beginning of time?

Quote:

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]
You're assuming the belief in a Hell is essential to the Christian belief. Not so.. Most Christian denominations essential dogmas is that Jesus saves rather than God punishes. Ask most Christians which one of those beliefs is of upmost importance to them.. or essential to them. I would guess that it is more likely the former. Currently many denominations do not believe in idea of everlasting hellfire burning sinners forever. Want more explanation on this idea?

Hell IS essential to Christian belief. Christians are taught to love Jesus because he died for them. What is it you think "Jesus saves" people from if not from hell? Jesus is Christians' "savior", their ticket to heaven. If those who aren't 'saved' are not going to hell, then nothing is lost by not believing.
Honestly, I've never heard a Christian argue that Hell is not real or is not a part of their religion.

Quote:

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]
Love is reactionary? But I digress... I'm assuming you refer to the many instances in the Bible in which human writers describe God. Projection perhaps? An in the cases where it is a quote accredited to God himself, well.. I would only use this conditional statement. If God is real, and all those things you mention, would he be better trying to describe himself using the ideas and terminology of his level or that of a lower life form? I suppose the same thing can be exampled by a Professor of Quantum Physics talking with a 9 year old kid. Reasonable answer?

So, your reasoning on why God has emotion is that it is by mans' description? We seem to understand just fine how emotionless he should be. Why did God create a flood to kill the world, save Noah and his family? If he had no emotion he wouldn't want nor desire any outcome. If God has no desire or emotion, why did he create man in the first place? He couldn't have cared either way, that is, unless he was emotional, just like the Bible says.
Also, if God wanted us to understand and believe, wouldn't he have given us the ability to?

Quote:

6. Why would God create a place such as hell to torture sinners forever when he foreknew who would disappoint him? - IG [Note: Some say you have a choice, but this misses the point. If God hates sin so much, why create Adam and Eve when he knew they'd sin? The only conclusion I can come up with, if Yaweh exists, is that he wanted sin to enter the world.]
Look to the answer 4 for a half response to the rest I would say only this: I disagree with use of the word hate, but I'll continue answer. People shouldn't have kids. How can it be love to birth a human being into such a world? Where they are most guarenteed to disappoint you at some point? You might contend that God is all knowing, perfect 'forsight,' however, I would present this possibility.. at somepoint let us say that a perfect form of genetic prediction comes into being in which you can predict the intelligence, physical condition, and even 'social utility'.. abort all babies that don't meet up to the highest standards, more or less loving? In other words.. does one have kids, 'create' as it were, so that those kids will succeed in the way they want, or is it to give life?

You compare the creation of man by God to the conception of children. First of all, we don't torture our children for all eternity when they screw up. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then there is no such thing as free will - only the illusion of free will. So, essentially, God would be creating people for the specific purpose to suffer and burn in hell.
Referring to the last line; if God creates humans for the same reasons people have children, then that suggests desire, a quality that God logically cannot have.

Quote:

7. "God is all merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet, since he's all-knowing, not allow them to be born at all? - IG
ON GOD'S LOVE & HELL
1.) God's love is superlative.
2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.
3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical.
5.) See answers 4 and 6.

Ok, see my answer to 6.

Quote:

8. Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Each prayer includes a variety of ritualism and posturing. If a muslim astronaut were to land on Mars. Prayer to Mecca would be ritualistically impossible due to the rotation of Earth and Mars. Are Muslims stuck here in Earth? IG [Note: Since this was first posted, a Muslim astronaut was faced with this very dilemma. The authoritative clergy informed him to pray as he normally would. I see this no where in the Koran. You see? Religions must change, or die out. It's interesting to note that, in the Koran, the moon is believed to be in the lowest Heaven, the level for those that barely made it to Heaven. Surah 71:15-16. One problem, no man can supposedly get to Heaven until they die. Yet, we've been to the moon. Our satellites beyond that.]
Let's wait until we get to Mars. As for defending the Muslim fair-- I cannot, for, I am not Muslim-- but perhaps they have some answer.

I believe the question was pointing to an obvious problem; that, unknown to early Muslims, it is not always possible to point towards Mecca. They would have never dreamed it was possible to leave Earth. The Quran makes no mention of it.
But yea, you're not a Muslim, so it isn't relevant to you.

Quote:

9. Why haven't we seen God reattach severed heads, restore someone who was burned alive or regrow amputated limbs? Surely these would be miracles difficult to deny. - Adam Majors and IG [Note: The typical answer is that man doesn't dictate God's actions. The conundrum here however is that, if God wants us to "know" him, then surely feats such as those mentioned above would be happening all over the world. Until they do, I'll remain an atheist.]
You're assuming, for one, that miracles will equate to conversion, or perfect belief in God-- yet, even in the Bible there is testament to the idea that this may not be the case. Forgive me for using the Bible in this case.. but I must, seeing as it's one of the few places that miracles exist, and the only place that is relevant to me answering these questions. Judas betrayed Jesus even though he had witness miracles.. as well as Isrealites continually rebelled against God even though they were witness to miracles. That's fine that you believe that miracles equate to conversion of the relevant kind, but I just mean to say, this is not necessarily the case.. since, well, there haven't been miracles in my time-- neither, do I believe, should they be the basis for faith.

I believe this question was referring to modern day. When it comes to the miracles in the Bible, there isn't any evidence for those alone, other than the Bible itself. You said you don't believe there are miracles happening today, anyway. So this argument should be irrelevant to you.
Many people tend to see miracles everywhere they go. They pray for something to happen, and if it does happen then they attribute that event to God and call it a miracle. The problem with these people is that they get all excited about things that would likely happen anyway. When things don't happen the way they prayed for then they often say it was God's will or leave him out of it entirely.
When it comes to sickness, people think their improvement or cure is the work of God. But what the argument you have posted was saying is that nothing impossible ever happens. The sicknesses that go away are ones that would likely have gone away anyway.

Quote:

10. Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't he do it himself? - IG [Note: Surely God would have known that not everyone would be convinced by the reality[sic] of his Bible. If God loves us so much, we are all going to Heaven. If God knew that I would be an atheist, and he doesn't like atheists, he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence. But he did. Therefore, I must be serving the will of God, for I exist. Smiling]
See answers 4 and 6.

Furthermore, if indeed this world, is as some theologians believe, a universal example of the effects of sin-- an experiment in sin as it were-- started by a challenge of the Devil to God, a challenge which was in essence life would be better this way than that, then so be it. In this experiment people choose to be people of truth, love, and right, or not. At the end of time, if the belief of some Christians be right, then God will have the choice to bring people into Heaven-- I personally believe that his decision will be more yours then his. Yes, he loves all, and so it's only a matter of whether at the end of time whether you wish to spend the rest of existence with God or be wiped from existence.

A type of absolute Euthanasia as it were.

As for the spreading of his word.. why not do it himself. Even a scientist keeps his experiment affecting actions to a designated minimum until it reaches it's proper time to bring it to an end-- otherwise he risks destroying the purpose of the experiment in the first place.

Furthermore x2, these 'what if God X' are questions that assume that God exists. In the case of these questions.. I would seriously ask. 'If God exists in the sense that he is omniscient and all those other things, what do you know that he doesn't about what would be best or most likely to bring about the salvation of our eternal souls?"

Of course this presumes that he is interested in these sort of things.

Now it would be a legitimate to ask a question, "If God is X, then why would he do Y." Such as the question of hell of eternal punishment and coinciding that with the idea of a loving God (Biblical concept)-- that's a tough thing to do. I could use the same answer I gave for this one.. however, the concept of eternal punishment for temporal sins is so contradictory to me when related to a loving God.. that I probably wouldn't.

Again, you can refer to my answer to your answer to 6.

This suggestion that God and Satan are wagering on peoples' actions reminds me of, more than anything, Greek mythology, giving the gods human qualities, which suggests borrowed ideas and concepts for Bible stories. This is apparent in Job where God and Satan have conversations and bet on Job's choices - ridiculous.
First of all, if you believe in the Bible, God is OMNISCIENT. There is no reason for an experiment or a demonstration. God would know all outcomes. Nothing would be a mystery to him.
Also, as stated before, if you believe in the Bible, Hell is real. There would be no euthanasia, only eternal torture.
And as for the rest of your suggestions; I really don't care becuase I don't believe in God.

A reoccuring theme among your responses is the idea that hell is essential for a Christian to believe in. That somehow if hell didn't exist, them there would be no purpose for Jesus.

True. It maybe true that that the idea of no hell is a *modern day adaptation that lead Christians further from truth (granted, we maybe delusional at the moment anyways).. however, in the case of saying this, I would be equally as justified in saying that the opposite is true, that some Christians modern understanding of Scripture is more accurate than past understandings. More on Hell later.

I make no assumptions about absolute truth. Even my belief in God is not an assumption of absolute truth.. but a faith statement (faith in this case desognating a choice.)

So.. with that I continue.

"Irrelevant. In fact, if the Bible said that all the Jews recognized Jesus as the Messiah, I would be pointing it out as ridiculous."

Then what the point of the question? The question asked something which assumed a premise (in this case the implication that Jews needed to accept the messiah).

So I gave my response saying that they have (Seeing that "Jews" are not one indiscrimate, singular entity but a race of people) to a degree.

And I further stated that if the assumption was that all Jews, according to prophecy, needed to accept the messiah, then this was in fact a faulty premise according to some theologians.

How is that irrevelant?

"True, there is no mention of eternity, but are angels not eternal? Even if the Garden of Eden disappeared or grew wild or whatever, along with the tree of life, and there was no longer a need for the Cherubim and it's flaming sword, you would think it would take time. There is no mention of the cherubim and the flaming sword again after Gen 3:24. Another thought - do you not find it odd that the cherubim had a flaming SWORD? A tool/weapon that would not have even existed during this time if the Bible were true. Why would the physical manifestation of one of God's angels be wielding a human weapon that hadn't even been invented? The writer of the story was obviously familiar with swords."

True. Angels are eternal. But the purpose of the Angel at the entrance to the garden of eden was not to "be" (singular word for "are&quot but rather to protect. At any point in time when there was nothing to protect or that purpose was fulfilled.. then what need would there be for the angel anymore?

I'm answering of course with one possible answer to your question.

As for it not being mentioned later than the third chapter. I apologize for the cherubim not being mentioned over and over again through the first however many books and chapters... and I accept this as evidence that he did not exists and that he had no relevant purpose for being in the story at all. (I'm being sarcastic for rhetorical purpose.)

As for the sword comment.. I suppose I can answer in two ways.

Either I could say: If there was a God, why would he need to be limited by the technological progress of man? In this case.. why would it be contrary to logic that he have a sword before a sword was created by man?

Furthermore, I believe it was Answer 6 that stated that the Bible was written by man looking back and forth from there respective times, gathering information as many historians do (I'd imagine). True.. my faith dictates that this was divinely inspired, but still translated by man.

Once again I give a conditional statement. If God exists, infinite that he would be, would he speak to man in his terms or in theirs? A description of a sight as a flaming sword by a writer at the beginning of the bronze age would be just as rational as a prophetic vision about nuclear weapons by a 1st century writer as "Fire from Heaven."

I guess what I'm getting at is.. the belief in God does not rest on the existence, now, of a flaming sword. And seeing as there are possible, rational, responses to this question.. then.. what is its importance?

"You are arguing that we cannot trust in scientific evidence because it hasn't been around as long as the Bible? Evidence is evidence, something that the Bible lacks. You suggest waiting 10,000 years to claim proof. I'd say science is much further down that road than religion. After all, according to the Bible the earth is 6,000 years old. So, theists have made no progress in the realm of proof since the beginning of time?"

Untrue. I never said that you couldn't trust scientific evidence. I stated that the questioner shouldn't have thrown around the word 'proof' so easily. Also. The bible does not age itself, or the world, some people believe 6000, some people believe 10000, some believe more, most with some rational using hebrew texts and their understandings of how geneologies are created.

And.. if you infered from my first answer that I was trying to say that the Bible "proves" better then scientific evidence-- this would be a false inference.

"Prove"ing is an idea even scientists try to stay away from.. they much more favor "supporting evidence" and what not.

...maybe I'm wrong.

To continue though... my purpose was only once again to state the Irrevelance of the question in the first place based off of scientific ideals (not biblical). The questioner asked.. "How do you explain this in the Bible when science has proven this?" So I stated.. what as science proven (in this case)?

The hypothetical question/response would be this. If the Bible is true, inspired word of God, perfect in and of itself, throughout history, then how foolish would it be to ask for it to reconcile itself with something that claims itself to be temporal and subject to change. (Science and it's laws.)

Now.. if scientists claim there beliefs unopen to change-- well then this would be a completely different story and I would be answering the question differently. Mainly saying.. "Look how many times scientists have changed their mind!" But.. they don't, so I don't need to say this.

Another way to put this is this. You are in essence asking me to Reconcile Mathematics with Anthropology..... that's going to be fun.

"Hell IS essential to Christian belief. Christians are taught to love Jesus because he died for them. What is it you think "Jesus saves" people from if not from hell? Jesus is Christians' "savior", their ticket to heaven. If those who aren't 'saved' are not going to hell, then nothing is lost by not believing. Honestly, I've never heard a Christian argue that Hell is not real or is not a part of their religion."

I think you make a strong statement when none can be made. Christians are taught to love Jesus because he first love them. Verse straight out of the Bible. But I digress.

In answer to your what does Jesus save you from if not from hell. Perhaps this can be answered by saying that Jesus saves you from a eternity that lacks him.

Granted.. if you feel nothing is lost by not existing for eternity, then-- by all means.. nothing is lost by not believing.

As for the "dieing for them part" let me state two possible situations.

Jesus loves man. Wishes to show man how much he loves him. Only way he can do this is by coming to earth in manner in which man would understand, mainly as man. Man kills him.

Jesus loves man. Wishes to save man. Only way that he can save man is by dieing to fulfill some blood oath. Comes to earth. Dies.

In both these instances it could accurately be said that "Jesus died for them." One semantical understanding refers to his intention in being there to die, the other refers to his actual dieing.

As an example of at least one denomination that argues the non-existence of a eternal, punishing hell. Number 27.

"So, your reasoning on why God has emotion is that it is by mans' description? We seem to understand just fine how emotionless he should be. Why did God create a flood to kill the world, save Noah and his family? If he had no emotion he wouldn't want nor desire any outcome. If God has no desire or emotion, why did he create man in the first place? He couldn't have cared either way, that is, unless he was emotional, just like the Bible says. Also, if God wanted us to understand and believe, wouldn't he have given us the ability to?"

I never said God was emotionless. I implied that the belief that mans description of God is imperfect due to the difficulty of describing the workings of an infinite being. (I try to stay away from poetics.. in this case I fail). That is why I gave an example of the kid with the quantum physics professor. Ask a kid to describe the workings of a quantum physics professor.. far less.. the workings of his biological father. The kid would then, most likely, describe the individual in terms that he understands. Whether these terms are accurate or not is a different issue... but then again-- the question doesn't ask me if I believe them to be accurate or not. If it did, I'd be giving another answer.

As per your last part. I do have the power to believe and understand. Or do I not?

"You compare the creation of man by God to the conception of children. First of all, we don't torture our children for all eternity when they screw up. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then there is no such thing as free will - only the illusion of free will. So, essentially, God would be creating people for the specific purpose to suffer and burn in hell. Referring to the last line; if God creates humans for the same reasons people have children, then that suggests desire, a quality that God logically cannot have."

Refer to Answer 4 once again. As for the implication of God and desire. Where has the proposition that God cannot logically have desire been established?

He has a desire to create. And so he does. Hm. If you're refering to the immutableness of God.. and that logical deducation.. refer to question 23.. or whatever it was.

" Ok, see my answer to 6."

See Answer 4.

"I believe the question was pointing to an obvious problem; that, unknown to early Muslims, it is not always possible to point towards Mecca. They would have never dreamed it was possible to leave Earth. The Quran makes no mention of it. But yea, you're not a Muslim, so it isn't relevant to you."

Agreed. We found common ground. In that it's not relevant to me I mean.

"I believe this question was referring to modern day. When it comes to the miracles in the Bible, there isn't any evidence for those alone, other than the Bible itself. You said you don't believe there are miracles happening today, anyway. So this argument should be irrelevant to you. Many people tend to see miracles everywhere they go. They pray for something to happen, and if it does happen then they attribute that event to God and call it a miracle. The problem with these people is that they get all excited about things that would likely happen anyway. When things don't happen the way they prayed for then they often say it was God's will or leave him out of it entirely. When it comes to sickness, people think their improvement or cure is the work of God. But what the argument you have posted was saying is that nothing impossible ever happens. The sicknesses that go away are ones that would likely have gone away anyway."

Hm.. I never said miracles don't happen. I said that I do not believe miracles should be, or can be, the basis for faith. Two very different things.

"Again, you can refer to my answer to your answer to 6.

This suggestion that God and Satan are wagering on peoples' actions reminds me of, more than anything, Greek mythology, giving the gods human qualities, which suggests borrowed ideas and concepts for Bible stories. This is apparent in Job where God and Satan have conversations and bet on Job's choices - ridiculous. First of all, if you believe in the Bible, God is OMNISCIENT. There is no reason for an experiment or a demonstration. God would know all outcomes. Nothing would be a mystery to him. Also, as stated before, if you believe in the Bible, Hell is real. There would be no euthanasia, only eternal torture. And as for the rest of your suggestions; I really don't care becuase I don't believe in God."

Again. Refer to Answer 4.

Furthermore. I don't believe that this experiment is for Gods benefit, but rather the universe as a whole , as well as man-- difficult as it may be to understand.

But even as the pain of learning the fire burns is a painful lesson to learn for a child, so is that sin is evil one difficult to ingrain I'd imagine.

Furthermore, similarities between Greek mythology and the Bible do exists... however, they depart on a couple points.

1.) The purpose of the wager. One proposes entertainmet, the other proposes universal education.

2.) The character of God. Greek mythology is usually filled with stories of man reaching out to God at their own peril. The other a story of God reaching out to Man at His own peril.

"What then is Jesus saving us from? If I'm not going to be punished, why should I care about Jesus at all?"

True. I believe that a belief in God based solely on the fear of punishment is a belief not worth having. And therefore you would not care about the existence of Jesus as all, because you feel his relevance to life only resides within his ability to punish-- then there is no reason to care in the absence of hell. As for the question as to what he is saving us from.. look at my answers below.

"It is true that Christians have de-emphasized the hell bit. I think this is a modern trend in response to secular ethics. This is a case of Christians changing their beliefs to make it more palatable to the current moral climate. While I have no problems with change, Christians who jettison hell have, IMHO, no claims to absolute truth anymore because they're making their beliefs relative to the culture they're in."

I touch on this a bit in the pretext to answering questions below. But let me give a bit more of my observations. If a Christian claims to have complete absolute truth on all issues regarding the character of God and the idea of salvation.. and then changes it-- then he is indeed being dishonest and loses credibility when claiming absolute truth the next time.

I find the studying of Bible to be more of a scientific excersize then anything else. The words *are written-- that is a fact (not the content of their writings)-- and I am interpreting these fact as new light and understanding comes to me.

I do not claim to have absolute truth, neither do many other Christians. (I said many, not most

I believe that a belief in God based solely on the fear of punishment is a belief not worth having. And therefore you would not care about the existence of Jesus as all, because you feel his relevance to life only resides within his ability to punish-- then there is no reason to care in the absence of hell. As for the question as to what he is saving us from.. look at my answers below.

I basically agree with you here.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

"It is true that Christians have de-emphasized the hell bit. I think this is a modern trend in response to secular ethics. This is a case of Christians changing their beliefs to make it more palatable to the current moral climate. While I have no problems with change, Christians who jettison hell have, IMHO, no claims to absolute truth anymore because they're making their beliefs relative to the culture they're in."

I touch on this a bit in the pretext to answering questions below. But let me give a bit more of my observations. If a Christian claims to have complete absolute truth on all issues regarding the character of God and the idea of salvation.. and then changes it-- then he is indeed being dishonest and loses credibility when claiming absolute truth the next time.

I agree once again. This is the sort of religious belief I'm against, claims of absolute knowledge. Like it or not, all religions change over time. My only concern with moderate-to-liberal Christians is they seem to get upset when we call bullshit on the absolutist. I don't understand why they want to defend them.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I find the studying of Bible to be more of a scientific excersize then anything else. The words *are written-- that is a fact (not the content of their writings)-- and I am interpreting these fact as new light and understanding comes to me.

I do not claim to have absolute truth, neither do many other Christians. (I said many, not most

Yah.. I got to get to class now.

Like I said, I don't have much of a problem with reinterpreting the bible. The thing is, it becomes just another human endeavor, prone to error and change. Many Christians would balk at this, especially the evangelical strain in the U.S..

"I agree once again. This is the sort of religious belief I'm against, claims of absolute knowledge. Like it or not, all religions change over time. My only concern with moderate-to-liberal Christians is they seem to get upset when we call bullshit on the absolutist. I don't understand why they want to defend them."

I believe in the existence of absolute truth-- I do not believe that anyone can claim to *know that they have a hold of it.

Religion, even as science (not saying that science is a religion, necessarily), each, seems to be a search for truth. Both are rational-- even though their respective followers may not be all the time.

I just don't believe the argument is as simple as many people make it out to be. Christians say.. you're wrong, read the Bible, trust God. And Atheists tend to say.. you're wrong, you're not being rational, look at these questions, they're unanswerable!

Niether is necessarily the case-- at least I don't believe it to be so. Which is why I hold problems with the Blasphemy Challenge But this is not the time or the place for this. It just seems to me to be purposefully disrespectful, and there is no need to be.. granted-- fundamentalist Christians, at times, are equally as disrespectful, and therefore perhaps this whole debate is just reactionary.... and has lost rational and reason a long time ago. Let's hope not.

True. I believe that a belief in God based solely on the fear of punishment is a belief not worth having. Therefore if you believe that belief in God solely resides on his ability to punish, then yes, the absence of hell would seem to do away with the sole reason to believe and follow him.

I believe the story of Bible to be a story of a God trying to reconnect with a people... and the end of time, when finality is brought to bare-- people will choose, either explicitly by voice or implicitly through there lives-- whether they wish to spend the rest of eternity with God.

"It is true that Christians have de-emphasized the hell bit. I think this is a modern trend in response to secular ethics. This is a case of Christians changing their beliefs to make it more palatable to the current moral climate. While I have no problems with change, Christians who jettison hell have, IMHO, no claims to absolute truth anymore because they're making their beliefs relative to the culture they're in."

I touch on this a bit in the pretext to answering questions below. But let me give a bit more of my observations. If a Christian claims to have complete absolute truth on all issues regarding the character of God and the idea of salvation.. and then changes it-- then he is indeed being dishonest (mistaken would be more accurate) and loses credibility when claiming absolute truth the next time.

I find the studying of Bible to be more of a scientific excersize then anything else. The words *are written-- that is a fact (not the content of their writings)-- and I am interpreting these fact as new light and understanding comes to me.

I do not claim to have absolute truth, neither do many other Christians. (I said many, not most

Yah.. I got to get to class now.

I edited it a bit-- it was badly written the first time. I have that problem. I'm only human, not necessarily inspired by God in each and every word.

I believe in the existence of absolute truth-- I do not believe that anyone can claim to *know that they have a hold of it.

If no human being can claim to hold absolute truth then what is its worth? I know the value of objective truth and it is completely reconcilable with my atheistic worldview, but I fail to see how the theistic idea of absolute truth can hold any value when it can not be absolutely known. Its existence is completely irrelevant and therefor there is no reason to ever consider its existence.

Quote:

Religion, even as science (not saying that science is a religion, necessarily), each, seems to be a search for truth. Both are rational-- even though their respective followers may not be all the time.

Wrong. If I had never heard of the concept of a god I would have no reason to ever contemplate one's existence. The fact that I live and breath and walk around and touch matter and feel heat and see colors and experience emotion leads me to contemplate these things scientifically, the best proven method of inquisition available to me as a human. This is the position I start from. One of knowing nothing and seeing where necessity leads me. It has never led to needing toconsider the possibility of a deity existing.

Quote:

I just don't believe the argument is as simple as many people make it out to be. Christians say.. you're wrong, read the Bible, trust God. And Atheists tend to say.. you're wrong, you're not being rational, look at these questions, they're unanswerable!

It is just that simple. Well, not including the questions, it is actually simpler than needing those. Christians say read a book witten by something you have no reason to believe exists and trust in something you have no reason to believe exists, and atheists say trust in what you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste, and the information your human mind extrapolates from the data recieved by all those natural senses.

Quote:

Niether is necessarily the case-- at least I don't believe it to be so. Which is why I hold problems with the Blasphemy Challenge But this is not the time or the place for this. It just seems to me to be purposefully disrespectful, and there is no need to be.. granted-- fundamentalist Christians, at times, are equally as disrespectful, and therefore perhaps this whole debate is just reactionary.... and has lost rational and reason a long time ago. Let's hope not.

Why should I or anyone else respect anyone's belief in a god or gods? What inherehtly beneficial properties does such a belief hold that we should consider it untouchable? I can point you to an inherent danger it has.

Such a belief is without question the single best way to motivate a group of otherwise peaceful decent human beings into an irrational unaccepting oppressive mob. When one believes that they are doing what is desired by the only entity of any real importance or power in existence, the only source of life, good, love, and truth, then they are in a frame of mind that has the potential to be unrivaled in its ability to do harm. That alone, to me, outwieghs any consideration I should have for respecting the existence of this utterly unnecessary belief .

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

I believe in the existence of absolute truth-- I do not believe that anyone can claim to *know that they have a hold of it.

If no human being can claim to hold absolute truth then what is its worth? I know the value of objective truth and it is completely reconcilable with my atheistic worldview, but I fail to see how the theistic idea of absolute truth can hold any value when it can not be absolutely known. Its existence is completely irrelevant and therefor there is no reason to ever consider its existence.

You are right. My wording was not fully accurate. Perhaps I should said this.. I believe in an absolute truth even thought I believe that, at this time, no one can claim to *know for a certainity what it is.

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

Religion, even as science (not saying that science is a religion, necessarily), each, seems to be a search for truth. Both are rational-- even though their respective followers may not be all the time.

Vessel wrote:

Wrong. If I had never heard of the concept of a god I would have no reason to ever contemplate one's existence.

If this be true, then how would that first person first come to contemplate his own existence? I do believe that one can rationalized the rise of religion and the idea of contemplating ones own existence as a function of consciousness-- however, this premise seems to imply there is no way that one could come to question his own existence if he had never heard of the concept of God. In which case my original question is asked.

Vessel wrote:

The fact that I live and breath and walk around and touch matter and feel heat and see colors and experience emotion leads me to contemplate these things scientifically, the best proven method of inquisition available to me as a human. This is the position I start from. One of knowing nothing and seeing where necessity leads me. It has never led to needing to consider the possibility of a deity existing.

Perhaps. I see nothing wrong with your mode of reasoning in this part. But my original statement was only meant to suggest that both Religion and Science are continuous searches for truth.

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

I just don't believe the argument is as simple as many people make it out to be. Christians say.. you're wrong, read the Bible, trust God. And Atheists tend to say.. you're wrong, you're not being rational, look at these questions, they're unanswerable!

Vessel wrote:

It is just that simple. Well, not including the questions, it is actually simpler than needing those. Christians say read a book witten by something you have no reason to believe exists and trust in something you have no reason to believe exists, and atheists say trust in what you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste, and the information your human mind extrapolates from the data recieved by all those natural senses.

I would have to disagree with this-- at least with what I feel to be the implication. I'm going to get very philosphical for a moment in presenting this thought.

You say that Christians say read a book that there is no reason to believe is true, and to believe in a God that there is no reason to believe in.

Christians do say read a book. The accepting of it as truth is a choice, a statement of faith and an acceptence of a premise with no other rational other then you choose to do so.

Every structure of reasoning requires accepting some sort of assumption that there is no reason to believe other then the fact that you choose to do so.

For instance. That the reality we perceive is in fact real. In otherwords, to some degree, discounting the possibility that we are experiencing one giant hallucination. Ask the schizophrenic down the road to describe his reality.. I'm it might be somewhat different then yours.

But you accept it. So be it. So do I. For no other reason then I choose to do so.

Accepting this, what I consider to be a self-evident premise, is a choice I make (although I probably don't think about it much because of the very reason that I believe it be self-evident... most others would probably not either). However I would probably agree with René Descartes belief that there is only one, truly, "self-evident" premise.. in the purest sense.. that being "I think, therefore I am."

In anycase. I'm rambling. To be more concise. "I believe the Bible to describe accurate ________ (fill in the blank) because I choose to believe so."

"I believe the sensations that I experience around me to be an accurate represenation of reality because I choose to believe so."

They are premises of choice. Assumptions are everywhere. It's why conversations go on for so long. I probably have twenty assumption in this single sentence.

And assumptions, in and of themselves, cannot be contradictory-- only coupled together with other assumptions can they be made to be contradictory and therefore, irrational.

e.g. 1.) I live in a whale.

Is not irrational in and of itself.. nor is there anyreason to believe or not believe that I do or do not live in a whale unless you assume other things such as.

2.) The word whale is being used in the definitive sense, in accordance with scientifically classified species.

3.) I am a human being not an evolved frog of some sort that can type.

4.) The whale is not dead.

5.) If its not dead, a human cannot fit inside.

6, 7, 8.) Etc etc etc.

And through the acceptence of further assumptions one can say that I'm being irrational or contradictory based of those assumptions that I accept.

In this case-- you assume there is no reason to believe that the Bible was written, or influenced by God, and/or that there is no reason to believe in his existence.

I do not accept this fact.

You further assume that I accept the assumption that there is reason to believe that what you consider reality, I do as well.

Heh.. in this case you are right.

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

Niether is necessarily the case-- at least I don't believe it to be so. Which is why I hold problems with the Blasphemy Challenge But this is not the time or the place for this. It just seems to me to be purposefully disrespectful, and there is no need to be.. granted-- fundamentalist Christians, at times, are equally as disrespectful, and therefore perhaps this whole debate is just reactionary.... and has lost rational and reason a long time ago. Let's hope not.

Vessel wrote:

Why should I or anyone else respect anyone's belief in a god or gods? What inherehtly beneficial properties does such a belief hold that we should consider it untouchable?

I never said the belief is untouchable.. I didn't even say that the belief itself is untouchable or somehow worthy of respect. I just contended that it is unnecessarily disrespectful. Perhaps I should have specified this comment to a greater extent by saying that it is unnecessarily disrespectful towards people.

"Unnecessarily disrespectful".. not that it is untouchable.. I just took issue with the means by which one side voiced their opinion. It would be as if.. I said to a person who believes in monogamy. "I believe in in polygamy. F* your family." The first part is necessary for a debate.. the second isn't.

Vessel wrote:

I can point you to an inherent danger it has.

Such a belief is without question the single best way to motivate a group of otherwise peaceful decent human beings into an irrational unaccepting oppressive mob. When one believes that they are doing what is desired by the only entity of any real importance or power in existence, the only source of life, good, love, and truth, then they are in a frame of mind that has the potential to be unrivaled in its ability to do harm. That alone, to me, outwieghs any consideration I should have for respecting the existence of this utterly unnecessary belief .

"Inherent" means necessary does it not? Or insepereable? Does this mean that you have never meant a Christian group to act against the danger you just stated?

Or perhaps you just meant that the danger is always a possibility.

I would agree with that.

But then... I don't believe you agree with these assumptions, which I'm assuming are necessary for your contention.

1.) If something has an inherent danger, inherent meaning always-possibility of harm, then it should be done away with.

And if you do then..

Gasoline has the inherent danger of exploding.

Antibiotics have the inherent danger of creating more potent bacteria.

People have the inherent danger of being irrational. (This one might be pushing it Then again.. can anyone claim to never have acted irrationally? That is.. without reason proceeding action?)

You are right. My wording was not fully accurate. Perhaps I should said this.. I believe in an absolute truth even thought I believe that, at this time, no one can claim to *know for a certainity what it is.

It seems apparent that there is no way for a human being to ever know absolute truth as no matter what perspective you are viewing from, it must always be from some perspective. This would lead to truth only necessarily being truth from said perspective. Absolutes are completely useless. Only objective truths can ever be known to anyone.

Quote:

Vessel wrote:

Wrong. If I had never heard of the concept of a god I would have no reason to ever contemplate one's existence.

If this be true, then how would that first person first come to contemplate his own existence? I do believe that one can rationalized the rise of religion and the idea of contemplating ones own existence as a function of consciousness-- however, this premise seems to imply there is no way that one could come to question his own existence if he had never heard of the concept of God. In which case my original question is asked.

"One's" in my above quoted sentence was meant to refer to the god's existence. There would be no reason to ever contemplate a god's existence. There is plenty of reason for one to contemplate one's own existence, just not a god's. And contemplating one's own existence does not lead one to a god if one doesn't already have a concept of a god.

Now, someone at some point (and most probably many people at many points as these type of beliefs seemed to have popped up all over) must have contemplated a god's existence unprompted, but it does not mean that contemplating this god was in any way necessary. It seems to be basically no different than creating a character, a result of imagination not of investigation. Unlike science where we are led by one question to the next and answers come through investigation and experimentation, theism answers the questions with imagination. There is no question of which I am aware that leads necessarily to a god.

Quote:

Perhaps. I see nothing wrong with your mode of reasoning in this part. But my original statement was only meant to suggest that both Religion and Science are continuous searches for truth.

Religion, though, is the search for a truth that leads to a specific presupposed and yet unneccasry end. Science is not.

Quote:

I would have to disagree with this-- at least with what I feel to be the implication. I'm going to get very philosphical for a moment in presenting this thought.

You say that Christians say read a book that there is no reason to believe is true, and to believe in a God that there is no reason to believe in.

Christians do say read a book. The accepting of it as truth is a choice, a statement of faith and an acceptence of a premise with no other rational other then you choose to do so.

Every structure of reasoning requires accepting some sort of assumption that there is no reason to believe other then the fact that you choose to do so.

For instance. That the reality we perceive is in fact real. In otherwords, to some degree, discounting the possibility that we are experiencing one giant hallucination. Ask the schizophrenic down the road to describe his reality.. I'm it might be somewhat different then yours.

But you accept it. So be it. So do I. For no other reason then I choose to do so.

Accepting this, what I consider to be a self-evident premise, is a choice I make (although I probably don't think about it much because of the very reason that I believe it be self-evident... most others would probably not either). However I would probably agree with René Descartes belief that there is only one, truly, "self-evident" premise.. in the purest sense.. that being "I think, therefore I am."

In anycase. I'm rambling. To be more concise. "I believe the Bible to describe accurate ________ (fill in the blank) because I choose to believe so."

"I believe the sensations that I experience around me to be an accurate represenation of reality because I choose to believe so."

I always find it strange when someone resorts to this sort of argument. It is as if they are stretching for a strong branch on which to hang their irrationality despite the fact that they know intuitively, if not rationaly, that it is just a mirage. I think this is the kind of argument people present even though they don't actually believe it holds any water, they just think it will get them out of a sticky situation.

We must trust our experience to be an accurate representation of reality, not because we choose to, but because by deciding whether or not to trust our experiences as an actual representation of reality we are employing the means by which we experience reality. We do not have the option of not trusting our experiences as an actual interpretation of reality. It is necessary, not a choice. If we do not trust our sense as an actual interpretation of reality, then we can not trust that our 'not trusting our sense as an actual interpretation of reality' is an actual interpretation of reality.

On the point of the bible, you are right. People simply choose to believe it. It is by no means necessary.

Quote:

They are premises of choice.

No, as illustrated above, one is not.

Quote:

Assumptions are everywhere. It's why conversations go on for so long. I probably have twenty assumption in this single sentence.

Define assumptions as you are using the term. I have a feeling it is not the standard definition.

Quote:

And assumptions, in and of themselves, cannot be contradictory-- only coupled together with other assumptions can they be made to be contradictory and therefore, irrational.

I do not see the point of this paragraph.

Quote:

e.g. 1.) I live in a whale.

Is not irrational in and of itself.. nor is there anyreason to believe or not believe that I do or do not live in a whale unless you assume other things such as.

2.) The word whale is being used in the definitive sense, in accordance with scientifically classified species.

3.) I am a human being not an evolved frog of some sort that can type.

4.) The whale is not dead.

5.) If its not dead, a human cannot fit inside.

6, 7, 8.) Etc etc etc.

And through the acceptence of further assumptions one can say that I'm being irrational or contradictory based of those assumptions that I accept.

I do not see how this at all relates to the discussion.

Quote:

In this case-- you assume there is no reason to believe that the Bible was written, or influenced by God, and/or that there is no reason to believe in his existence.

I do not assume there is no reason. There simply is no reason of which I am aware. It is not an assumption. It is a matter of the fact that I am unaware of any reason to believe such a thing.

Quote:

I do not accept this fact.

Then show me a rational reason.

Quote:

You further assume that I accept the assumption that there is reason to believe that what you consider reality, I do as well.

Heh.. in this case you are right.

No, I do not merely assume so. There is good reason to believe that what we consider to be reality is very similar. The fact that I am having a conversation with you on the internet is a very good reason. You obviously experience computers and other entities and electricity and matter and energy and language. I need not assume that what we consider our realities coincide.

Furthermore, whether or not what we consider our realities is the same is unimportant. The fact that we exist and can communicate makes it a necessary fact that our realities are indeed the same.

Quote:

I never said the belief is untouchable.. I didn't even say that the belief itself is untouchable or somehow worthy of respect. I just contended that it is unnecessarily disrespectful. Perhaps I should have specified this comment to a greater extent by saying that it is unnecessarily disrespectful towards people.

"Unnecessarily disrespectful".. not that it is untouchable.. I just took issue with the means by which one side voiced their opinion. It would be as if.. I said to a person who believes in monogamy. "I believe in in polygamy. F* your family." The first part is necessary for a debate.. the second isn't.

People don't always do only that which is necessary, that is true. Sometimes though, when people are reluctant if not completely refusing to listen to reason a little shock can be a real coversation starter. The amount of trafffic the challenge has brought to this site and the conversations it has started seem to be evidence to the fact that it was exactly the kind of tool the founders of the site hoped it would be. Whether or not anyone considers it appropriate, it was undeniably effective.

Vessel wrote:

I can point you to an inherent danger it has.

Such a belief is without question the single best way to motivate a group of otherwise peaceful decent human beings into an irrational unaccepting oppressive mob. When one believes that they are doing what is desired by the only entity of any real importance or power in existence, the only source of life, good, love, and truth, then they are in a frame of mind that has the potential to be unrivaled in its ability to do harm. That alone, to me, outwieghs any consideration I should have for respecting the existence of this utterly unnecessary belief .

Quote:

"Inherent" means necessary does it not? Or insepereable? Does this mean that you have never meant a Christian group to act against the danger you just stated?

Yes, inherent. The danger is always present. Because the danger is present does not mean that it is active.

Quote:

Or perhaps you just meant that the danger is always a possibility.

I would agree with that.

Yes.

Quote:

But then... I don't believe you agree with these assumptions, which I'm assuming are necessary for your contention.

1.) If something has an inherent danger, inherent meaning always-possibility of harm, then it should be done away with.

And if you do then..

Gasoline has the inherent danger of exploding.

Antibiotics have the inherent danger of creating more potent bacteria.

No. These have benefits. There are no such benefits with theism. I can be good and loving and peaceful and charitable without theism. I can not drive to the casino without gasoline being as that my car runs on gasoline. I can not have an equal chance of surviving infection and as quick a recovery from infection without antibiotics.

Quote:

People have the inherent danger of being irrational. (This one might be pushing it Then again.. can anyone claim to never have acted irrationally? That is.. without reason proceeding action?)

No one can not, but that does not mean would should employ this behavior as often as possible.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

Wow.. these responses are getting long. Let's try me try to make the response smaller without losing accuracy.

Vessel wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

You are right. My wording was not fully accurate. Perhaps I should said this.. I believe in an absolute truth even thought I believe that, at this time, no one can claim to *know for a certainity what it is.

It seems apparent that there is no way for a human being to ever know absolute truth as no matter what perspective you are viewing from, it must always be from some perspective. This would lead to truth only necessarily being truth from said perspective. Absolutes are completely useless. Only objective truths can ever be known to anyone.

I can accept this. There is no purpose in believe in absolute truth. Even if God comes and everyone goes to heaven and a thousand years pass. Even then it could be said that perhaps there is more then just God.

I did state however, that I believe in absolute truth.. not that I have a graspe of it.. nor that it is purposeful. Even as I believe in the infiniteness of the universe.. even though-- objectively-- it has no purpose either.

Vessel wrote:

Quote:

Vessel wrote:

Wrong. If I had never heard of the concept of a god I would have no reason to ever contemplate one's existence.

If this be true, then how would that first person first come to contemplate his own existence? I do believe that one can rationalized the rise of religion and the idea of contemplating ones own existence as a function of consciousness-- however, this premise seems to imply there is no way that one could come to question his own existence if he had never heard of the concept of God. In which case my original question is asked.

"One's" in my above quoted sentence was meant to refer to the god's existence. There would be no reason to ever contemplate a god's existence. There is plenty of reason for one to contemplate one's own existence, just not a god's. And contemplating one's own existence does not lead one to a god if one doesn't already have a concept of a god.

Ah. Now I See.

Vessel wrote:

Now, someone at some point (and most probably many people at many points as these type of beliefs seemed to have popped up all over) must have contemplated a god's existence unprompted, but it does not mean that contemplating this god was in any way necessary.

Wait. Then perhaps I don't see. I was assuming the idea you applied to yourself (That being that you would have no reason to contemplate the existence of God if one did not mention the existence of God to you) was universal. If you did not mean for it to be universally applied, then so be it-- if so. Then the remained of your explanation is addressing a different issue-- that is whether or not the creation of a character in the likeness of gods or God was necessary, rather than then the explanation of why it was created if there was no reason too.

Vessel wrote:

It seems to be basically no different than creating a character, a result of imagination not of investigation.

So you reason is the need for companionship led man to use the natural facilities of imagination to create a God/gods character/s. Possible I suppose-- not necessary.

Vessel wrote:

Unlike science where we are led by one question to the next and answers come through investigation and experimentation, theism answers the questions with imagination. There is no question of which I am aware that leads necessarily to a god.

Neither is there question to which I am aware that leads to the necessary conclusion that is *no God.

As for the contention that theist move from question to question and use imagination to answer them; scientists move from question to question by using experimentation and investigation-- I must contend, in part.

Mainly the connection between experimentation and investigation. All experimentation is investigation but not all investigation is experimentation.

Science, for the most part use experimentation to develop theories. However, there are certain instances where only investigation is mainly used because experimentation cannot. For instance. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory as well as the theory of the progressive evolution of man from ape.

There is no experiment that has reproduced this transition or any similar transition (cross-species evolution).. and is, according to my understanding, a product of investigation and supporting facts. In much the same way as a case is built-- circumstantial evidence.

Theist use this form of investigation, in some cases, to move from question to question. Using circumstantial evidence to support a certain idea. Of course.. circumstantial evidence can only go so far-- and as criminal cases prove time and time again, there are always other possible scenarios that would have produced the same facts.

As for experimentation.. only so far as some Christians try and use to discount scientific theory. Which.. well-- is what experimentation is used for anyways... to disprove something, not necessarily prove it.

Quote:

Perhaps. I see nothing wrong with your mode of reasoning in this part. But my original statement was only meant to suggest that both Religion and Science are continuous searches for truth.

Vessel wrote:

Religion, though, is the search for a truth that leads to a specific presupposed and yet unneccasry end. Science is not.

Once again.. I never said that Religion is a necessary end to anything. Religion, in the Christian, sense is the search for truth with a presuppose end, that end being the existence of God. Some believe this existence must coincide with the ideas of rationalism (mainly, that the God, if there is one, is not contradictory)-- and others do not.

However.. you do make a good distinction. Although.. per my answer to 28 or something-- God is not necessarily supernatural and science cannot discount the possibility that it may come to find a natural, albeit it very powerful, being with the ability to create matter. Like you said.. science has no stated Goal.. it's only limitations lie within sciences ability to describe something using it's own terminology-- which is constantly changing. (consider the emergence of quantum physical vocabulary.. as well as string theory.)

Any ways.. a side issue.

There might be a distinction.. kind of getting far off base from my original answers to the original questions however.

Quote:

I would have to disagree with this-- at least with what I feel to be the implication. I'm going to get very philosphical for a moment in presenting this thought.

You say that Christians say read a book that there is no reason to believe is true, and to believe in a God that there is no reason to believe in.

Christians do say read a book. The accepting of it as truth is a choice, a statement of faith and an acceptence of a premise with no other rational other then you choose to do so.

Every structure of reasoning requires accepting some sort of assumption that there is no reason to believe other then the fact that you choose to do so.

For instance. That the reality we perceive is in fact real. In otherwords, to some degree, discounting the possibility that we are experiencing one giant hallucination. Ask the schizophrenic down the road to describe his reality.. I'm it might be somewhat different then yours.

But you accept it. So be it. So do I. For no other reason then I choose to do so.

Accepting this, what I consider to be a self-evident premise, is a choice I make (although I probably don't think about it much because of the very reason that I believe it be self-evident... most others would probably not either). However I would probably agree with René Descartes belief that there is only one, truly, "self-evident" premise.. in the purest sense.. that being "I think, therefore I am."

In anycase. I'm rambling. To be more concise. "I believe the Bible to describe accurate ________ (fill in the blank) because I choose to believe so."

"I believe the sensations that I experience around me to be an accurate represenation of reality because I choose to believe so."

Vessel wrote:

I always find it strange when someone resorts to this sort of argument. It is as if they are stretching for a strong branch on which to hang their irrationality despite the fact that they know intuitively, if not rational, that it is just a mirage. I think this is the kind of argument people present even though they don't actually believe it holds any water, they just think it will get them out of a sticky situation.

Okay.

Vessel wrote:

We must trust our experience to be an accurate representation of reality, not because we choose to, but because by

Quote:

deciding

Not because we choose to but because by deciding.....?

Quote:

whether or not to trust our experiences as an actual representation of reality we are employing the means by which we experience reality.

"I think, therefore I am." Yes. You are because you are thinking. I would agree with this. But that does not mean to say that "I am, because you think I am." That is the idea of reality that I was addressing.

Vessel wrote:

We do not have the option of not trusting our experiences as an actual interpretation of reality.

We don't? You accept your reality and the schizophrenic his and the witch docter his. Is this to say that all of you are equally as unable to make a choice as to what is real, and what is not?

Vessel wrote:

It is necessary, not a choice. If we do not trust our sense as an actual interpretation of reality, then we can not trust that our 'not trusting our sense as an actual interpretation of reality' is an actual interpretation of reality.

Once again. "I think therefore I am" I have agreed with this. But it does not address the reality of things other than your existence.

Quote:

On the point of the bible, you are right. People simply choose to believe it. It is by no means necessary.

Great.. Me encanta when I actually find some common ground.

Quote:

They are premises of choice.

Vessel wrote:

No, as illustrated above, one is not.

Wait.. which one? The one about "I think therefore I am" or the one about "You are because I think you are."?

Quote:

Assumptions are everywhere. It's why conversations go on for so long. I probably have twenty assumption in this single sentence.

Quote:

Define assumptions as you are using the term. I have a feeling it is not the standard definition.

I'm using in the legal sense of something taking for granted. These assumptions are either stated.. or not. Most of the time they are not.. which is why I speak of the length of conversation. Because people are working of different assumption.. and many times don't define them.

Quote:

And assumptions, in and of themselves, cannot be contradictory-- only coupled together with other assumptions can they be made to be contradictory and therefore, irrational.

Vessel wrote:

I do not see the point of this paragraph.

Sorry. I can be unclear at times-- as many people are. I was meaning to point out the concept of irrationality again. Irrationality refers something being illogical which an assumption, in and of itself, cannot be.

Quote:

e.g. 1.) I live in a whale.

Is not irrational in and of itself.. nor is there anyreason to believe or not believe that I do or do not live in a whale unless you assume other things such as.

2.) The word whale is being used in the definitive sense, in accordance with scientifically classified species.

3.) I am a human being not an evolved frog of some sort that can type.

4.) The whale is not dead.

5.) If its not dead, a human cannot fit inside.

6, 7, 8.) Etc etc etc.

And through the acceptence of further assumptions one can say that I'm being irrational or contradictory based of those assumptions that I accept.

Quote:

I do not see how this at all relates to the discussion.

Once again. Just pointing out the concept of irrationality.. and how, in order to say that a person is irrational, one must argue that he is illogical-- contradictory in some part of his belief.

Quote:

In this case-- you assume there is no reason to believe that the Bible was written, or influenced by God, and/or that there is no reason to believe in his existence.

Vessel wrote:

I do not assume there is no reason. There simply is no reason of which I am aware. It is not an assumption. It is a matter of the fact that I am unaware of any reason to believe such a thing.

Ah. I misunderstood you then. I point then again to my statement about reality. You are having a conversation with me because you believe me to be real for no other reason then you have choosen to believe that things affecting you are real and seperate entities.

"I think you are therefore you are": Agreed. But not necessarily true-- indeed a choice.

"I think the Bible is divinely inspired therefore it is.": I don't necessarily agree with this. But it is a as valid an assumption (something taken for granted) as the one above, although not as self evident as the first.

Quote:

I do not accept this fact.

Vessel wrote:

Then show me a rational reason.

See above.

Quote:

You further assume that I accept the assumption that there is reason to believe that what you consider reality, I do as well.

Heh.. in this case you are right.

Vessel wrote:

No, I do not merely assume so. There is good reason to believe that what we consider to be reality is very similar.

Quote:

The fact that I am having a conversation with you on the internet is a very good reason.

I had a conversation without a chimpanzee yesterday when I was asleep. And then I woke up.. dangit-- perhaps you haven't woken up yet?

Quote:

You obviously experience computers and other entities and electricity and matter and energy and language. I need not assume that what we consider our realities coincide.

You need to assume that I am infact real... in the sense that I am a seperate entity and not a figment of your imagination.

Quote:

Furthermore, whether or not what we consider our realities is the same is unimportant. The fact that we exist and can communicate makes it a necessary fact that our realities are indeed the same.

See above.

Quote:

I never said the belief is untouchable.. I didn't even say that the belief itself is untouchable or somehow worthy of respect. I just contended that it is unnecessarily disrespectful. Perhaps I should have specified this comment to a greater extent by saying that it is unnecessarily disrespectful towards people.

"Unnecessarily disrespectful".. not that it is untouchable.. I just took issue with the means by which one side voiced their opinion. It would be as if.. I said to a person who believes in monogamy. "I believe in in polygamy. F* your family." The first part is necessary for a debate.. the second isn't.

Vessel wrote:

People don't always do only that which is necessary, that is true. Sometimes though, when people are reluctant if not completely refusing to listen to reason a little shock can be a real coversation starter. The amount of trafffic the challenge has brought to this site and the conversations it has started seem to be evidence to the fact that it was exactly the kind of tool the founders of the site hoped it would be. Whether or not anyone considers it appropriate, it was undeniably effective.

I would have to agree with this.

Vessel wrote:

I can point you to an inherent danger it has.

Such a belief is without question the single best way to motivate a group of otherwise peaceful decent human beings into an irrational unaccepting oppressive mob. When one believes that they are doing what is desired by the only entity of any real importance or power in existence, the only source of life, good, love, and truth, then they are in a frame of mind that has the potential to be unrivaled in its ability to do harm. That alone, to me, outwieghs any consideration I should have for respecting the existence of this utterly unnecessary belief .

Quote:

"Inherent" means necessary does it not? Or insepereable? Does this mean that you have never meant a Christian group to act against the danger you just stated?

Yes, inherent. The danger is always present. Because the danger is present does not mean that it is active.

Quote:

Or perhaps you just meant that the danger is always a possibility.

I would agree with that.

Yes.

Quote:

But then... I don't believe you agree with these assumptions, which I'm assuming are necessary for your contention.

1.) If something has an inherent danger, inherent meaning always-possibility of harm, then it should be done away with.

And if you do then..

Gasoline has the inherent danger of exploding.

Antibiotics have the inherent danger of creating more potent bacteria.

Vessel wrote:

No. These have benefits.

You would contend that Religion has none? And I don't mean to suggest that Religion must have a superior benifit to other things-- or even a unique benifit.. only a benefit. Continued below:

Vessel wrote:

There are no such benefits with theism. I can be good and loving and peaceful and charitable without theism. I can not drive to the casino without gasoline being as that my car runs on gasoline. I can not have an equal chance of surviving infection and as quick a recovery from infection without antibiotics.

True-- you cannot drive. You can walk. True.. you would not have an equal chance. But a chance nonetheless, as well as a bacterial evolution that would be severely retarded by the absence of antibiotics (possibly). (I do not mention vaccines.. different issue.)

So.. if religion does have some benifit (not necessarily unique) then our debate would have to turn which one is more efficient. Then we would need to weigh cost and benefits.. etc.

I suppose we could do that.....

Quote:

People have the inherent danger of being irrational. (This one might be pushing it Then again.. can anyone claim to never have acted irrationally? That is.. without reason proceeding action?)

Vessel wrote:

No one can not, but that does not mean one should employ this behavior as often as possible.

I have left out points on which we have agreed. That should help with the length.

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

vessel wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

"One's" in my above quoted sentence was meant to refer to the god's existence. There would be no reason to ever contemplate a god's existence. There is plenty of reason for one to contemplate one's own existence, just not a god's. And contemplating one's own existence does not lead one to a god if one doesn't already have a concept of a god.

Ah. Now I See.

Now, someone at some point (and most probably many people at many points as these type of beliefs seemed to have popped up all over) must have contemplated a god's existence unprompted, but it does not mean that contemplating this god was in any way necessary.

Wait. Then perhaps I don't see. I was assuming the idea you applied to yourself (That being that you would have no reason to contemplate the existence of God if one did not mention the existence of God to you) was universal. If you did not mean for it to be universally applied, then so be it-- if so. Then the remained of your explanation is addressing a different issue-- that is whether or not the creation of a character in the likeness of gods or God was necessary, rather than then the explanation of why it was created if there was no reason too.

I mean for it to be universal. I think I see where the confusion enters the picture however. I say no reason, but I mean no necessary reason. We can contemplate our own existence without being led necessarilly to a concept of a deity. We can likewise contemplate everything of which I am aware. That someone added the concept of a deity at some point by no means makes it a necessary component. Had it never been added, I see no reason to think it would be missed. Basically it offers nothing necessary is what I was saying.

Vessel wrote:

So you reason is the need for companionship led man to use the natural facilities of imagination to create a God/gods character/s. Possible I suppose-- not necessary.

Not necessarily companionship, but lack of scientific explanation. I consider all god's to be god's of the gaps.

Quote:

Neither is there question to which I am aware that leads to the necessary conclusion that is *no God.

I don't claim there to be. I simply claim that without a question that leads necessarily to god, to consider a god to exist is pure faith. To not consider a god to exist is simply seeing no reason to consider one to exist. It requires no faith. It is simply the state of not possessing that unevidenced belief. No different than not believing in anything else for which there is no question that leads us to its existence.

Quote:

As for the contention that theist move from question to question and use imagination to answer them; scientists move from question to question by using experimentation and investigation-- I must contend, in part.

Mainly the connection between experimentation and investigation. All experimentation is investigation but not all investigation is experimentation.

Science, for the most part use experimentation to develop theories. However, there are certain instances where only investigation is mainly used because experimentation cannot. For instance. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory as well as the theory of the progressive evolution of man from ape.

There is no experiment that has reproduced this transition or any similar transition (cross-species evolution).. and is, according to my understanding, a product of investigation and supporting facts. In much the same way as a case is built-- circumstantial evidence.

Theist use this form of investigation, in some cases, to move from question to question. Using circumstantial evidence to support a certain idea. Of course.. circumstantial evidence can only go so far-- and as criminal cases prove time and time again, there are always other possible scenarios that would have produced the same facts.

Yes, and science allows for these facts to lead to a new conclusion at any time. Religion does not. With evolution we see evolutionary changes as far as genetic differences within a species that are a result of 'mutations' and can see how that would allow certain members in a population an advantage in a particular environment and then extrapolate those small changes over X amount of time and see that a new species would be the result. If however this was shown to be incorrect by new data the conclusion that evolution through natural selection can account for the varied life we see today would change. In religion if the data changes the conclusion remains god.

Quote:

As for experimentation.. only so far as some Christians try and use to discount scientific theory. Which.. well-- is what experimentation is used for anyways... to disprove something, not necessarily prove it.

But they use it to reach a presumed and unalterable conclusion which makes it necessarily faulty experimentation. Its bad science.

Quote:

However.. you do make a good distinction. Although.. per my answer to 28 or something-- God is not necessarily supernatural and science cannot discount the possibility that it may come to find a natural, albeit it very powerful, being with the ability to create matter. Like you said.. science has no stated Goal.. it's only limitations lie within sciences ability to describe something using it's own terminology-- which is constantly changing. (consider the emergence of quantum physical vocabulary.. as well as string theory.)

It could. It could discover a nearly infinite number of things but until it does, to hold to them as existing, seems odd.

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

We must trust our experience to be an accurate representation of reality, not because we choose to, but because by

Quote:

deciding

Not because we choose to but because by deciding.....?

Yes, but you can't just pick out the word "deciding" but must look at the context in which it is being used. I'm not saying we do decide. I'm saying that if we we're to try to decide we would have to use the same means to decide that we are calling into question. You actually answer this yourself in the reason as religion thread but seem to have trouble with it here. It is the same concept.

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

whether or not to trust our experiences as an actual representation of reality we are employing the means by which we experience reality.

"I think, therefore I am." Yes. You are because you are thinking. I would agree with this. But that does not mean to say that "I am, because you think I am." That is the idea of reality that I was addressing.

It is the same thing. I am experiencing reality in the same way I am experiencing my own existence. I must use the means by which I call reality into question to determine whether or not reality is real. I have no choice to believe or not believe in reality. I must consider what I know as reality 'as reality' because I have no other way to know it.

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

We do not have the option of not trusting our experiences as an actual interpretation of reality.

We don't? You accept your reality and the schizophrenic his and the witch docter his. Is this to say that all of you are equally as unable to make a choice as to what is real, and what is not?

We all experience the same reality. That is my reality. Because the schiz experiences delusions does not mean he experiences another reality. The only way I can experience him is with the tools with which I experience reality, as that is the only way in which I am equipped to experience him. Whether or not his tools coincide with mine is wholly unimportant since as I experience you and him you both experience the same reality as I do. That is the only thing that can possibly be relevant to me as that is all I can possibly experience.

Vessel wrote:

Once again. "I think therefore I am" I have agreed with this. But it does not address the reality of things other than your existence.

It does in the only way it can no matter what your worldview.

Quote:

Wait.. which one? The one about "I think therefore I am" or the one about "You are because I think you are."?

Neither one of those is a choice. They are both necessary.

Quote:

I'm using in the legal sense of something taking for granted. These assumptions are either stated.. or not.

But you are not using assumption in the traditional sense when you apply it to people accepting the way in which they experience reality. If this was what we meant by assumption then why differentiate it from evidence or reason or reality?

Quote:

Sorry. I can be unclear at times-- as many people are. I was meaning to point out the concept of irrationality again. Irrationality refers something being illogical which an assumption, in and of itself, cannot be.

Because something is irrational does not mean it is illogical. Thinking that green dwarves inhabit my trash can is irrational. It is in no way illogical.

Quote:

Once again. Just pointing out the concept of irrationality.. and how, in order to say that a person is irrational, one must argue that he is illogical-- contradictory in some part of his belief.

No. That is not what irrational means.

Quote:

Ah. I misunderstood you then. I point then again to my statement about reality. You are having a conversation with me because you believe me to be real for no other reason then you have choosen to believe that things affecting you are real and seperate entities.

No. As I have pointed out, it is not a matter of choosing it is a necessity.

"I think you are therefore you are": Agreed. But not necessarily true-- indeed a choice.

Not a choice. And it is not 'I think you are therfor you are'. It is '"I think therefor I am and what I experience is necessarily iinseperable from me."

Quote:

"I think the Bible is divinely inspired therefore it is.": I don't necessarily agree with this. But it is a as valid an assumption (something taken for granted) as the one above, although not as self evident as the first.

No it is not. There are many other ways in which the bible can come about. There is no other way which you could experience reality except as the way you experience it with the tools you with which experience it. If that is not what reality is then you can not experience it. There is no choice in the matter.

Quote:

I had a conversation without a chimpanzee yesterday when I was asleep. And then I woke up.. dangit-- perhaps you haven't woken up yet?

if that is the case I would know when I woke up. If not it is irrelevant. I can only experience what I can expoerience.

Quote:

You need to assume that I am infact real... in the sense that I am a seperate entity and not a figment of your imagination.

I do not need to assume you are real. You are real in the only way you can be real. You are real as far as I know using the only methoid available to me to tell if youi are real. Anything else is wholly unimportant as it is impossible for me to know. It is not choice but necessity.

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

No. These have benefits.

You would contend that Religion has none? And I don't mean to suggest that Religion must have a superior benifit to other things-- or even a unique benifit.. only a benefit. Continued below:

Vessel wrote:

There are no such benefits with theism. I can be good and loving and peaceful and charitable without theism. I can not drive to the casino without gasoline being as that my car runs on gasoline. I can not have an equal chance of surviving infection and as quick a recovery from infection without antibiotics.

True-- you cannot drive. You can walk. True.. you would not have an equal chance. But a chance nonetheless, as well as a bacterial evolution that would be severely retarded by the absence of antibiotics (possibly). (I do not mention vaccines.. different issue.)

A chance is not an equal chance and walking is not driving my car. I can achieve the exact same thing by the exact same method with or without religion. It is useless in unique abilities aside from allowing people to believe in an afterlife and a god both of which hold very dangerous possibilities.

Quote:

So.. if religion does have some benifit (not necessarily unique) then our debate would have to turn which one is more efficient. Then we would need to weigh cost and benefits.. etc.

No because the benefit of driving my car to the casino is a unique benefit. It is not the same as walking to the casino. The benefit is getting better quicker and easier, not simply getting better. You arbitrarily set the benefit at arriving at the casino or getting better and discarded the unique benefits and then said that they didn't exist.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

I have left out points on which we have agreed. That should help with the length.

Good idea. (Can be removed)

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

vessel wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

"One's" in my above quoted sentence was meant to refer to the god's existence. There would be no reason to ever contemplate a god's existence. There is plenty of reason for one to contemplate one's own existence, just not a god's. And contemplating one's own existence does not lead one to a god if one doesn't already have a concept of a god.

Ah. Now I See.

Now, someone at some point (and most probably many people at many points as these type of beliefs seemed to have popped up all over) must have contemplated a god's existence unprompted, but it does not mean that contemplating this god was in any way necessary.

Wait. Then perhaps I don't see. I was assuming the idea you applied to yourself (That being that you would have no reason to contemplate the existence of God if one did not mention the existence of God to you) was universal. If you did not mean for it to be universally applied, then so be it-- if so. Then the remained of your explanation is addressing a different issue-- that is whether or not the creation of a character in the likeness of gods or God was necessary, rather than then the explanation of why it was created if there was no reason too.

Vessel wrote:

I mean for it to be universal. I think I see where the confusion enters the picture however. I say no reason, but I mean no necessary reason. We can contemplate our own existence without being led necessarilly to a concept of a deity. We can likewise contemplate everything of which I am aware. That someone added the concept of a deity at some point by no means makes it a necessary component. Had it never been added, I see no reason to think it would be missed. Basically it offers nothing necessary is what I was saying.

Agreed. This is a rational response. Very possible that no one would miss it. Possible that some might. The inability to think of a reason of why something would be missed of something that is in-fact here (the belief, not God himself) does not necessarily equate to the lack of reason. I guess.. I would liken this to saying.. I see no reason why I would miss my mother if she died-- does not mean that in fact, I would not miss her if she died. (If Agreed.. you can remove)

Quote:

So your reason is the need for companionship led man to use the natural facilities of imagination to create a God/gods character/s. Possible I suppose-- not necessary.

Vessel wrote:

Not necessarily companionship, but lack of scientific explanation. I consider all god's to be god's of the gaps.

Agreed. Possible explanation for the creation of theism. But we're speaking of "not necessarily"s.. so I would contend that "all god's to be god's of the gaps" to not necessarily be the correct explanation-- even though it could be. Even so much as I would say that "all god's are real" to not necessarily be the correct explanation-- even though it could be. This is not meaning to be a statement of faith, but rather a belief in possibles reasons to questions and facts as we have presented them so far. Specifically, that people believe in God. That is all at this moment. Irrational or not (not established for the moment). (Agreed? If so. Then remove.)

Quote:

Neither is there question to which I am aware that leads to the necessary conclusion that is *no God.

Vessel wrote:

I don't claim there to be. I simply claim that without a question that leads necessarily to god, to consider a god to exist is pure faith. To not consider a god to exist is simply seeing no reason to consider one to exist. It requires no faith. It is simply the state of not possessing that unevidenced belief. No different than not believing in anything else for which there is no question that leads us to its existence.

The first part would seem to agree with my question above. But the rest of it I will ask for more info.

To consider a god to exist is faith based. (Agreed. Whether that faith is rational or not is a different issue. And whether it is purely faith based is a different issue-- at least I consider it to be. For instance.. while I agree with your statement below I do not agree with a statement one that would be constructed like this. "There is no reason to consider a god to exist, and therefore it is purely faith based." The definition of reason, used as a noun, means basis or cause for some belief, action, or.. etc. There is no limitations to what this basis could be. You may not accept what someone else professes to be experiential reason to believe in a God as reason for you, but that does not mean that it is not reason for them. And as long as those reasons are not contradictory, then it is rational as well. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason .)

To not consider a god to exist is simply seeing no reason to consider one to exist. (Agreed. Remove? I would however contend that you accept other things for no more independently verifiable reason then that of the theist who says they consider God to exist because that is the only way in which they know to understand reality.)

Quote:

As for the contention that theist move from question to question and use imagination to answer them; scientists move from question to question by using experimentation and investigation-- I must contend, in part.

Mainly the connection between experimentation and investigation. All experimentation is investigation but not all investigation is experimentation.

Science, for the most part use experimentation to develop theories. However, there are certain instances where only investigation is mainly used because experimentation cannot. For instance. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory as well as the theory of the progressive evolution of man from ape.

There is no experiment that has reproduced this transition or any similar transition (cross-species evolution).. and is, according to my understanding, a product of investigation and supporting facts. In much the same way as a case is built-- circumstantial evidence.

Theist use this form of investigation, in some cases, to move from question to question. Using circumstantial evidence to support a certain idea. Of course.. circumstantial evidence can only go so far-- and as criminal cases prove time and time again, there are always other possible scenarios that would have produced the same facts.

Vessel wrote:

Yes, and science allows for these facts to lead to a new conclusion at any time. Religion does not. With evolution we see evolutionary changes as far as genetic differences within a species that are a result of 'mutations' and can see how that would allow certain members in a population an advantage in a particular environment and then extrapolate those small changes over X amount of time and see that a new species would be the result. If however this was shown to be incorrect by new data the conclusion that evolution through natural selection can account for the varied life we see today would change. In religion if the data changes the conclusion remains god.

Agreed. The conclusion that god remains is an aspect of *most religious searches for truth. And since science, as we now understand it and God, cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being. However, the same language you use.. evolution "would allow".. evolution through natural selection "can account".. is the same wording that I believe Christian should use when speaking of God. The existence of God "could account" for this.. or "can account" for that. And even as scientific theories are disproved by the contradiction of evidence, and reason based off that evidence, so such is religion which tenants must adhere to the construct it has created for itself. In this construct, in the Christian sense, it is that God is loving in the purest of senses. If at some point someone presents me with evidence that would seem to suggest that God is not loving. Then I would either have to refute, accept and change my picture of God, or accept and do away with my picture of God.

I do not believe science and religion to be exact in every way. Only the belief that, in their ideal states, they both should be rational. (e.g. irrational response to the question. Why did God do X? R: Because he did it or Because he is God. Is not answering the question-- and in one case it is circular logic, a fallacy, irrational. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational . Definition 3.)

Quote:

As for experimentation.. only so far as some Christians try and use to discount scientific theory. Which.. well-- is what experimentation is used for anyways... to disprove something, not necessarily prove it.

Quote:

But they use it to reach a presumed and unalterable conclusion which makes it necessarily faulty experimentation. Its bad science.

Agreed. If they claim their experiment to do anymore then prove that X is wrong-- then this is bad science. If in their minds they have an unalterable conclusion.. and they will test til kingdom come (Heh. Joking.) that X is wrong and fail forever-- this is not bad science. As long as they do not claim to be proving that Y is right through science. That is left for the peer reviews and arguments.. not valid in the experimentation process.

Quote:

However.. you do make a good distinction. Although.. per my answer to 28 or something-- God is not necessarily supernatural and science cannot discount the possibility that it may come to find a natural, albeit it very powerful, being with the ability to create matter. Like you said.. science has no stated Goal.. it's only limitations lie within sciences ability to describe something using it's own terminology-- which is constantly changing. (consider the emergence of quantum physical vocabulary.. as well as string theory.)

Vessel wrote:

It could. It could discover a nearly infinite number of things but until it does, to hold to them as existing, seems odd.

Agreed. But to hold those same things as 'not existing' absolutely because of the suppositions of a temporally restricted conclusion of a certain methodology which claims to have no defined goal and presently accepts change.. is equally odd.

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

We must trust our experience to be an accurate representation of reality, not because we choose to, but because by

Quote:

deciding

Not because we choose to but because by deciding.....?

Vessel wrote:

Yes, but you can't just pick out the word "deciding" but must look at the context in which it is being used. I'm not saying we do decide. I'm saying that if we we're to try to decide we would have to use the same means to decide that we are calling into question. You actually answer this yourself in the reason as religion thread but seem to have trouble with it here. It is the same concept.

My purpose was not to take out of context something.. but rather to point out what I found particularly odd at that moment.

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

whether or not to trust our experiences as an actual representation of reality we are employing the means by which we experience reality.

"I think, therefore I am." Yes. You are because you are thinking. I would agree with this. But that does not mean to say that "I am, because you think I am." That is the idea of reality that I was addressing.

Vessel wrote:

It is the same thing. I am experiencing reality in the same way I am experiencing my own existence. I must use the means by which I call reality into question to determine whether or not reality is real. I have no choice to believe or not believe in reality. I must consider what I know as reality 'as reality' because I have no other way to know it.

This I do not. For just because I think something is, does not mean it is. If this were the case then I could say that:Construct Z1.) I think you are. (You=God)2.) Therefore you are. (You=God)

I don't think you would accept this idea this construct. But it is necessary if you accept X and Y as the same.

Premise: If X is true then Y is also true.Premise: Z is the application of Y.Deduction: Therefore Z is true.

Once again I will state. I believe Construct X to be self evident. Construct Y is accepted by choice.

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

We do not have the option of not trusting our experiences as an actual interpretation of reality.

We don't? You accept your reality and the schizophrenic his and the witch docter his. Is this to say that all of you are equally as unable to make a choice as to what is real, and what is not?

Vessel wrote:

We all experience the same reality. That is my reality. Because the schiz experiences delusions does not mean he experiences another reality. The only way I can experience him is with the tools with which I experience reality, as that is the only way in which I am equipped to experience him. Whether or not his tools coincide with mine is wholly unimportant since as I experience you and him you both experience the same reality as I do. That is the only thing that can possibly be relevant to me as that is all I can possibly experience.

Agreed. If by saying this you mean reality is *not necessarily* universal. Or maybe thats not what you are saying.

"Whether or not his tools coincide with mine is wholly unimportant since as I experience you and him you both experience the same reality as I do." I do not understand this. Are you meaning to tell me that a person who feels, in all the same ways that you feel any piece of matter in this world, a green dwarf is on his shoulder is experiencing the same reality as you?

I apologize, but I will not more clarification on this part.

Vessel wrote:

Once again. "I think therefore I am" I have agreed with this. But it does not address the reality of things other than your existence.

Vessel wrote:

It does in the only way it can no matter what your worldview.

I'm speaking of self evident things again... and I think we're disagreeing on what is self evident. See above.

Quote:

Wait.. which one? The one about "I think therefore I am" or the one about "You are because I think you are."?

Vessel wrote:

Neither one of those is a choice. They are both necessary.

See above. You make a dangerous implication by saying these two things are equal-- at least logically I believe you do.

Quote:

I'm using in the legal sense of something taking for granted. These assumptions are either stated.. or not.

Vessel wrote:

But you are not using assumption in the traditional sense when you apply it to people accepting the way in which they experience reality. If this was what we meant by assumption then why differentiate it from evidence or reason or reality?

Assumption is something taken for granted. It is the basis of reason. As well as necessary to accept things as evidence as well as defining reality.

I guess that would be my point.

And that only one self evident assumption exists.. that being. "I think therefore I am." Everything else is by choice.

Quote:

Sorry. I can be unclear at times-- as many people are. I was meaning to point out the concept of irrationality again. Irrationality refers something being illogical which an assumption, in and of itself, cannot be.

Vessel wrote:

Because something is irrational does not mean it is illogical. Thinking that green dwarves inhabit my trash can is irrational. It is in no way illogical.

Ah. I misunderstood you then. I point then again to my statement about reality. You are having a conversation with me because you believe me to be real for no other reason then you have choosen to believe that things affecting you are real and seperate entities.

Vessel wrote:

No. As I have pointed out, it is not a matter of choosing it is a necessity.

Look again. Readdress. I maybe wrong in my construction of an argument.

"I think you are therefore you are": Agreed. But not necessarily true-- indeed a choice.

Vessel wrote:

Not a choice. And it is not 'I think you are therfor you are'. It is '"I think therefor I am and what I experience is necessarily iinseperable from me."

Oh.. if this is in fact what you are saying. Then I guess this explanation is better then the previous. But even so:

What you experience is inseparable from you. Agreed. But that this experience constitutes reality, in the sense as I believe you would define (as the end all. It is not a hallucination nor a dream nor a computer generated image. etc), is not as inseparable from the self-evident premise of "I think therefore I am."

If they are inseparable, and reality is universal. Then there would seem to be some sort of contradiction when I would lay claim to include God in my experience.

Quote:

"I think the Bible is divinely inspired therefore it is.": I don't necessarily agree with this. But it is a as valid an assumption (something taken for granted) as the one above, although not as self evident as the first.

Vessel wrote:

No it is not. There are many other ways in which the bible can come about. There is no other way which you could experience reality except as the way you experience it with the tools you with which experience it. If that is not what reality is then you can not experience it. There is no choice in the matter.

You state there is no choice in the matter. See above. Am I wrong in my inferences? I do not believe your existence and your perception that the reality you expeirence is reality to be inseparable.

Quote:

I had a conversation without a chimpanzee yesterday when I was asleep. And then I woke up.. dangit-- perhaps you haven't woken up yet?

Vessel wrote:

if that is the case I would know when I woke up. If not it is irrelevant. I can only experience what I can expoerience.

Agreed. However, if you agree that the possibility exist-- how can you therefore say that you have no choice in the matter as to what you consider to be real? Wherever more then one possibility exists for any given, one must choose which possibility to believe, or not consider at all, one of the given possibilities.

Quote:

You need to assume that I am infact real... in the sense that I am a seperate entity and not a figment of your imagination.

Vessel wrote:

I do not need to assume you are real. You are real in the only way you can be real. You are real as far as I know using the only methoid available to me to tell if youi are real. Anything else is wholly unimportant as it is impossible for me to know. It is not choice but necessity.

Premise: If real then can be experienced.Counterpositive: If it cannot be experienced, it is not real.

I would agree with both these tenants. They coincide with my idea of reality.

However.. within your sentence it does not state that:Premise: If can be experienced then real.

This would be an incorrect reversal. An irrational inference. A logical fallacy.

You experience me, therefore you assume that I am real because it is the only way that I can be real. But this is not consistent with the only assumption that we have stated is not accepted by choice, and is the only assumption that you can believe, without allowing me other avenues to argue. (See above). "I think therefore I am." "I am is inseparable from what I experience." These are different wordings of the same self-evident premise.

To say that I am real because you experience me is a new assumption. One I do not accept. And once again... leads to a conclusion of mine.

I do not need to assume that God is real. He is real in the only way that he can be real. (my experience)

As stated above.. you have allowed for a possibility that I am not. Even as I would say the monkey I had a conversation with in my dream was not real (in the sense that I use the word "real&quot and even as I would say it is possible that God is not.

You would contend that Religion has none? And I don't mean to suggest that Religion must have a superior benifit to other things-- or even a unique benifit.. only a benefit. Continued below:

Vessel wrote:

There are no such benefits with theism. I can be good and loving and peaceful and charitable without theism. I can not drive to the casino without gasoline being as that my car runs on gasoline. I can not have an equal chance of surviving infection and as quick a recovery from infection without antibiotics.

True-- you cannot drive. You can walk. True.. you would not have an equal chance. But a chance nonetheless, as well as a bacterial evolution that would be severely retarded by the absence of antibiotics (possibly). (I do not mention vaccines.. different issue.)

Vessel wrote:

A chance is not an equal chance and walking is not driving my car. I can achieve the exact same thing by the exact same method with or without religion. It is useless in unique abilities aside from allowing people to believe in an afterlife and a god both of which hold very dangerous possibilities.

Quote:

So.. if religion does have some benifit (not necessarily unique) then our debate would have to turn which one is more efficient. Then we would need to weigh cost and benefits.. etc.

No because the benefit of driving my car to the casino is a unique benefit. It is not the same as walking to the casino. The benefit is getting better quicker and easier, not simply getting better. You arbitrarily set the benefit at arriving at the casino or getting better and discarded the unique benefits and then said that they didn't exist.

What you are saying here is that it is a "unique benefit" to be able to get to the casino quicker and easier.

When you use the word unique.. do you not mean incomparable to other things? So how could you use the words quicker and easier, which are intristically comparative, for a unique benefit?

I state this because.. we can try to have an argument about which is better, easier, quicker to bring about any benefit which you perceive theism to have and that atheism can replace.. but-- that would be kind of hard.

I'm not sure I want to say my moral journey was easier, better, quicker, more fulfilling then yours.... where would that go?

Bump. Wait. Is this allowed? I only mean to point out that I still wish to continue this debate.. and seeing as I've made the last comment, I still need a reply.

Oh.. and the debate could end with: "Your response doesn't make any sense at all, you're stupid." At which case I would have nothing to argue.

I stopped by to read some while I had a few minutes but don't have time to respond today or probably tomorrow either. I will, however reply as time allows.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

Alright, I was browsing the forum and noticed another one of your posts and my name caught my eye. So, I'm going to respond to your answers to my answers.

Don't count on me going further than that. There's just so damn much here and I don't have all day to answer 80+ questions and answers that, many of which, step outside of natural law itself to answer, assuming the existence of the supernatural. Some of the questions in the list (I haven't even read all of them) aren't very good questions to begin with and I don't see how they are much of a challenge for any theist to answer.

Now, I'm going to go through the 10 that I answered and clarify my explanations or offer a counterpoint to your refutations. I will be quoting only your answer in an attempt to shorten the post.

Perhaps I can better answer today. I feel a bit more awake.

Question 1

Quote:

Then what the point of the question? The question asked something which assumed a premise (in this case the implication that Jews needed to accept the messiah).

So I gave my response saying that they have (Seeing that "Jews" are not one indiscrimate, singular entity but a race of people) to a degree.

And I further stated that if the assumption was that all Jews, according to prophecy, needed to accept the messiah, then this was in fact a faulty premise according to some theologians.

How is that irrevelant?

My point was not that it wasn't a valid question, but that it was irrelevant to the existence of God or Jesus. I only simply pointed out that if the Bible claimed that ALL the Jews believed Jesus was the messiah, it would not have been as believable.

Question 2

Quote:

True. Angels are eternal. But the purpose of the Angel at the entrance to the garden of eden was not to "be" (singular word for "are" but rather to protect. At any point in time when there was nothing to protect or that purpose was fulfilled.. then what need would there be for the angel anymore?

I'm answering of course with one possible answer to your question.

As for it not being mentioned later than the third chapter. I apologize for the cherubim not being mentioned over and over again through the first however many books and chapters... and I accept this as evidence that he did not exists and that he had no relevant purpose for being in the story at all. (I'm being sarcastic for rhetorical purpose.)

As for the sword comment.. I suppose I can answer in two ways.

Either I could say: If there was a God, why would he need to be limited by the technological progress of man? In this case.. why would it be contrary to logic that he have a sword before a sword was created by man?

Furthermore, I believe it was Answer 6 that stated that the Bible was written by man looking back and forth from there respective times, gathering information as many historians do (I'd imagine). True.. my faith dictates that this was divinely inspired, but still translated by man.

Once again I give a conditional statement. If God exists, infinite that he would be, would he speak to man in his terms or in theirs? A description of a sight as a flaming sword by a writer at the beginning of the bronze age would be just as rational as a prophetic vision about nuclear weapons by a 1st century writer as "Fire from Heaven."

I guess what I'm getting at is.. the belief in God does not rest on the existence, now, of a flaming sword. And seeing as there are possible, rational, responses to this question.. then.. what is its importance?

I agree entirely that once the Garden of Eden or the Tree of Life had disappeared, which it must have (if it ever existed), that there would be no need for the angel to guard it any more. When I mentioned the eternity of angels I was only suggesting that the scripture seemed to point towards it. As for the burning sword, I do not argue that an omnipotent being would be unable to create a sword for its angel, simply because it hadn't been invented yet. I was asking, why do you suppose God would have used a sword? Adam and Eve certainly wouldn't have recognized it. An angel certainly doesn't need a weapon in the first place. It just doesn't make sense that God would use an icon such as a sword that would not be recognizable to the ones it was meant for.

Question 3

Quote:

Untrue. I never said that you couldn't trust scientific evidence. I stated that the questioner shouldn't have thrown around the word 'proof' so easily. Also. The bible does not age itself, or the world, some people believe 6000, some people believe 10000, some believe more, most with some rational using hebrew texts and their understandings of how geneologies are created.

And.. if you infered from my first answer that I was trying to say that the Bible "proves" better then scientific evidence-- this would be a false inference.

"Prove"ing is an idea even scientists try to stay away from.. they much more favor "supporting evidence" and what not.

...maybe I'm wrong.

To continue though... my purpose was only once again to state the Irrevelance of the question in the first place based off of scientific ideals (not biblical). The questioner asked.. "How do you explain this in the Bible when science has proven this?" So I stated.. what as science proven (in this case)?

The hypothetical question/response would be this. If the Bible is true, inspired word of God, perfect in and of itself, throughout history, then how foolish would it be to ask for it to reconcile itself with something that claims itself to be temporal and subject to change. (Science and it's laws.)

Now.. if scientists claim there beliefs unopen to change-- well then this would be a completely different story and I would be answering the question differently. Mainly saying.. "Look how many times scientists have changed their mind!" But.. they don't, so I don't need to say this.

Another way to put this is this. You are in essence asking me to Reconcile Mathematics with Anthropology..... that's going to be fun.

Perhaps you didn't say that we couldn't trust scientific evidence... good thing I didn't say you did. The first sentence was a question. Also, I never said there was proof, but evidence. I agree that there is no absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof that the human species originated in Africa, but there is sufficient evidence to suggest and a lack of evidence to dispute. Aside from that, I was trying to point out that if either religion or science is anywhere close to absolute proof, its science. Religion fails miserably in the field of evidence.

Question 4

Quote:

I think you make a strong statement when none can be made. Christians are taught to love Jesus because he first love them. Verse straight out of the Bible. But I digress.

In answer to your what does Jesus save you from if not from hell. Perhaps this can be answered by saying that Jesus saves you from a eternity that lacks him.

Granted.. if you feel nothing is lost by not existing for eternity, then-- by all means.. nothing is lost by not believing.

As for the "dieing for them part" let me state two possible situations.

Jesus loves man. Wishes to show man how much he loves him. Only way he can do this is by coming to earth in manner in which man would understand, mainly as man. Man kills him.

Jesus loves man. Wishes to save man. Only way that he can save man is by dieing to fulfill some blood oath. Comes to earth. Dies.

In both these instances it could accurately be said that "Jesus died for them." One semantical understanding refers to his intention in being there to die, the other refers to his actual dieing.

As an example of at least one denomination that argues the non-existence of a eternal, punishing hell. Number 27.

Now, I don't know about you, but I count 54 verses in the KJV that mention the word 'hell.' That does not include the many more verses that talk about hell, only the ones that have the word. Even Rev. 20, which is where that messed up church of yours gets their belief, mentions hell.Rev. 20: (13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. (14)And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.This is the second death.(15)And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. You have to be the first Christian that I have encountered that did not believe in Hell. By they way, Rev. 20 just goes to show how ridiculous the Bible can get.

Question 5

Quote:

I never said God was emotionless. I implied that the belief that mans description of God is imperfect due to the difficulty of describing the workings of an infinite being. (I try to stay away from poetics.. in this case I fail). That is why I gave an example of the kid with the quantum physics professor. Ask a kid to describe the workings of a quantum physics professor.. far less.. the workings of his biological father. The kid would then, most likely, describe the individual in terms that he understands. Whether these terms are accurate or not is a different issue... but then again-- the question doesn't ask me if I believe them to be accurate or not. If it did, I'd be giving another answer.

As per your last part. I do have the power to believe and understand. Or do I not?

Regardless of what you may believe, this answer and reasoning is based on unprovable, purely supernatural reasoning - the assertion that there is a higher intelligence. If God were a real, omniscient, omnipotent being, we know he could not experience human emotion. To fix this problem you only offer pure baseless speculation, encouraged only by your faith. And if you claim that we cannot describe God's emotions, then you cannot understand it either.

Question 6

Quote:

Refer to Answer 4 once again. As for the implication of God and desire. Where has the proposition that God cannot logically have desire been established?

He has a desire to create. And so he does. Hm. If you're refering to the immutableness of God.. and that logical deducation.. refer to question 23.. or whatever it was.

An omniscient being knows all; past, present, future. He knows every outcome of every situation. To have desire to have or create something is a desire to know or experience it. An omniscient being already knows these things. Creation of something by an omniscient, omnipotent being cannot lead to a purpose without desire to experience the progression. An Omnipotent, Omniscient being is dependent on nothing and does not need means to an end. The end product is just as easily accomplished and is neither needed nor desired. With that out of the way, and the assumption that God exists, he created us "just 'cus," which makes no sense.

Question 7

Quote:

See Answer 4.

I'm going to skip this one for obvious reasons.

Question 8

Quote:

Agreed. We found common ground. In that it's not relevant to me I mean.

Thank Allah.

Question 9

Quote:

Hm.. I never said miracles don't happen. I said that I do not believe miracles should be, or can be, the basis for faith. Two very different things.

I took you to mean you did not believe in modern day miracles. Either way, my original answer stands.

Question 10

Quote:

Again. Refer to Answer 4.

Furthermore. I don't believe that this experiment is for Gods benefit, but rather the universe as a whole , as well as man-- difficult as it may be to understand.

But even as the pain of learning the fire burns is a painful lesson to learn for a child, so is that sin is evil one difficult to ingrain I'd imagine.

Furthermore, similarities between Greek mythology and the Bible do exists... however, they depart on a couple points.

1.) The purpose of the wager. One proposes entertainmet, the other proposes universal education.

2.) The character of God. Greek mythology is usually filled with stories of man reaching out to God at their own peril. The other a story of God reaching out to Man at His own peril.

I digress..

What is the purpose of the wager? We have already established that God is omniscient and already knows the outcome of all scenarios. As for universal education; again, God is supposed to be omniscient. If one believes in God and what he tells them, what need is there for anything further? If someone does not believe in God, they do not believe in Job either. In the story of Job, I believe more than any other, God especially, and Satan, are represented as not being omniscient and converging in a way that resembles human behavior, just like the gods of mythology.

I am still half asleep.. hoped up on Red Bull. But supposedly Caffenine makes you more focused.. so-- maybe this isn't a bad thing.

And yes, it's okay with me if we restrict the discussion to these 10.

Question 1

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

Then what the point of the question? The question asked something which assumed a premise (in this case the implication that Jews needed to accept the messiah).

So I gave my response saying that they have (Seeing that "Jews" are not one indiscrimate, singular entity but a race of people) to a degree.

And I further stated that if the assumption was that all Jews, according to prophecy, needed to accept the messiah, then this was in fact a faulty premise according to some theologians.

How is that irrevelant?

Kr wrote:

My point was not that it wasn't a valid question, but that it was irrelevant to the existence of God or Jesus. I only simply pointed out that if the Bible claimed that ALL the Jews believed Jesus was the messiah, it would not have been as believable.

Ah.. I see. Agree then.. It would not have been as believable. "As believable" being used very loosely.. since you, I assume, don't believe it to be very believable at all.

We can delete this one.. no?

Question 2

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

True. Angels are eternal. But the purpose of the Angel at the entrance to the garden of eden was not to "be" (singular word for "are"Eye-wink but rather to protect. At any point in time when there was nothing to protect or that purpose was fulfilled.. then what need would there be for the angel anymore?

I'm answering of course with one possible answer to your question.

As for it not being mentioned later than the third chapter. I apologize for the cherubim not being mentioned over and over again through the first however many books and chapters... and I accept this as evidence that he did not exists and that he had no relevant purpose for being in the story at all. (I'm being sarcastic for rhetorical purpose.)

As for the sword comment.. I suppose I can answer in two ways.

Either I could say: If there was a God, why would he need to be limited by the technological progress of man? In this case.. why would it be contrary to logic that he have a sword before a sword was created by man?

Furthermore, I believe it was Answer 6 that stated that the Bible was written by man looking back and forth from there respective times, gathering information as many historians do (I'd imagine). True.. my faith dictates that this was divinely inspired, but still translated by man.

Once again I give a conditional statement. If God exists, infinite that he would be, would he speak to man in his terms or in theirs? A description of a sight as a flaming sword by a writer at the beginning of the bronze age would be just as rational as a prophetic vision about nuclear weapons by a 1st century writer as "Fire from Heaven."

I guess what I'm getting at is.. the belief in God does not rest on the existence, now, of a flaming sword. And seeing as there are possible, rational, responses to this question.. then.. what is its importance?

Kr wrote:

I agree entirely that once the Garden of Eden or the Tree of Life had disappeared, which it must have (if it ever existed), that there would be no need for the angel to guard it any more. When I mentioned the eternity of angels I was only suggesting that the scripture seemed to point towards it.As for the burning sword, I do not argue that an omnipotent being would be unable to create a sword for its angel, simply because it hadn't been invented yet. I was asking, why do you suppose God would have used a sword? Adam and Eve certainly wouldn't have recognized it. An angel certainly doesn't need a weapon in the first place. It just doesn't make sense that God would use an icon such as a sword that would not be recognizable to the ones it was meant for.

Ah. I understand, I think, now.

Yes.. I believe the bible does suggest that unfallen angels are in communion with God (as much as one can be), and therefore eternal from their point of creation.

But what I mean by my statement is that the Bible doesn't necessitate the Angel "be" in that particular place for eternity.

As for the burning sword and the purpose of it's use, or at least it's description, in the Bible when Adam and Even would not understand such an icon.

Once again. Agreed that Adam and Even probably wouldn't have understood what a sword was, it being a sword. Here are my responses (assumptions, that if you are willing to accept as sound-- would answer this question).. any of which are rational, in that they don't contradict any other assumption I have stated or implied (I believe).

1.) It is not necessary to contemplate the implications of a sword without knowing what it is. A wild animal contemplates the danger of a spear..

I do not believe they contemplate it's entirety-- in that I mean: it's makeup, it's construction.2.) That if a writer of a future time writes a story relayed to him by past generations, he cannot apply is own knowledge of his time onto the story passed along.

By this I mean. I tell my Son: I don't know how to describe it, it was huge, and burned of fire. Shinned like the sun but was formed like a polished rock. It was shaped like this (insert rudimentury drawing in the sand). My Son passes this along.. so on and so on. Until at some point someone realizes what it is.

Scientists, anthropologist, do this.. when interpreting ancient civilizations descriptions of solar eclipses and the Northern Lights.

Hm.. if neither of these you are willing to accept as viable assumptions. I will attempt another. I accept them, because they appear to me to be rational. But I am trying to get you to accept them (the assumption.. not belief in God or proof of his existence).

Question 3

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

Untrue. I never said that you couldn't trust scientific evidence. I stated that the questioner shouldn't have thrown around the word 'proof' so easily. Also. The bible does not age itself, or the world, some people believe 6000, some people believe 10000, some believe more, most with some rational using hebrew texts and their understandings of how geneologies are created.

And.. if you infered from my first answer that I was trying to say that the Bible "proves" better then scientific evidence-- this would be a false inference.

"Prove"ing is an idea even scientists try to stay away from.. they much more favor "supporting evidence" and what not.

...maybe I'm wrong.

To continue though... my purpose was only once again to state the Irrevelance of the question in the first place based off of scientific ideals (not biblical). The questioner asked.. "How do you explain this in the Bible when science has proven this?" So I stated.. what as science proven (in this case)?

The hypothetical question/response would be this. If the Bible is true, inspired word of God, perfect in and of itself, throughout history, then how foolish would it be to ask for it to reconcile itself with something that claims itself to be temporal and subject to change. (Science and it's laws.)

Now.. if scientists claim there beliefs unopen to change-- well then this would be a completely different story and I would be answering the question differently. Mainly saying.. "Look how many times scientists have changed their mind!" But.. they don't, so I don't need to say this.

Another way to put this is this. You are in essence asking me to Reconcile Mathematics with Anthropology..... that's going to be fun.

Kr wrote:

Perhaps you didn't say that we couldn't trust scientific evidence... good thing I didn't say you did. The first sentence was a question. Also, I never said there was proof, but evidence.I agree that there is no absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof that the human species originated in Africa, but there is sufficient evidence to suggest and a lack of evidence to dispute.Aside from that, I was trying to point out that if either religion or science is anywhere close to absolute proof, its science. Religion fails miserably in the field of evidence.

You are correct in this. I misread. But at least I clarified the question as to my intention, yes?

Now to this next part.

I never said you said proofed.. I stated that the question said that it "proved" that man originated in Africa... I was addressing that.

As for the existence of evidence, I would agree, as I did, that there is evidence supporting the idea that man originated in Africa.

"Sufficient evidence to suggest.." Yes.

"Lack of evidence to dispute.." Yes.

Rewind 500 years.

"Sufficient evidence to suggest the world is stationary.." Yes

"Lack of evidence to dispute.." Yes

--

I was only trying to point out that if science, as I assume you believe it to be, has no stated or defined goal other than to discover.. how can you say that science is anywhere closer to absolute proof of anything? Tommorrow the dichotomy may change.. it was only within the past hundred years that members of the scientific community let ideas of dark matter enter the equation.. or fourth dimension.. or.. the "uncertainty principle." Scientific theory is the fitting of fact to and idea. Scientific experimentation is the idea of disproving a possibilities (you eliminate as many as you can.. then you make a theory-- which is open to be disproved at a future time).

As for "Religion fails miserably in the field of evidence".. not necessarily.

If you religion believes in the existence of what would be considered now a supernatural being... then yes. For the limitations of science (as it is now-- I must always put this qualification in, for the limitations maybe different tommorrow) would restrict that religious person to stating a theory that exists within the laws of nature (as we understand them now). As soon as the word supernatural slipped into the peer reviewed paper it would, or should be, discounted. (Intelligent Design has this problem... I do not believe that it can fit into the world of science as we now limit science to be.).

But.. I was taking issue with your statement.. for it presumes that Religion lacks evidence.. not that it lacks scientific (as we now define scientific) credibility. For scientific credibility requires that you explain the evidence using natural means.

However.. from a purely theoretical standpoint.. scientific theory and religious theory with regards to the beginning of the Universe are equally unprovable and equally evidenced. After all.. the only evidence we have is that we are here. The rest is a matter of whether it "could have" been one way or another.

Question 4

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

I think you make a strong statement when none can be made. Christians are taught to love Jesus because he first love them. Verse straight out of the Bible. But I digress.

In answer to your what does Jesus save you from if not from hell. Perhaps this can be answered by saying that Jesus saves you from a eternity that lacks him.

Granted.. if you feel nothing is lost by not existing for eternity, then-- by all means.. nothing is lost by not believing.

As for the "dieing for them part" let me state two possible situations.

Jesus loves man. Wishes to show man how much he loves him. Only way he can do this is by coming to earth in manner in which man would understand, mainly as man. Man kills him.

Jesus loves man. Wishes to save man. Only way that he can save man is by dieing to fulfill some blood oath. Comes to earth. Dies.

In both these instances it could accurately be said that "Jesus died for them." One semantical understanding refers to his intention in being there to die, the other refers to his actual dieing.

As an example of at least one denomination that argues the non-existence of a eternal, punishing hell. Number 27.

Kr wrote:

Now, I don't know about you, but I count 54 verses in the KJV that mention the word 'hell.' That does not include the many more verses that talk about hell, only the ones that have the word. Even Rev. 20, which is where that messed up church of yours gets their belief, mentions hell.Rev. 20: (13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. (14)And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (15)And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.You have to be the first Christian that I have encountered that did not believe in Hell.By they way, Rev. 20 just goes to show how ridiculous the Bible can get.

I do not accept Hell within the understanding that you presumed I did.. that being one of eternal agony and/or torture and/or torment.

None of these versus require me to understand it in such a way.

If.. you point me to some verse that requires me to understand it in the way that I stated before.. (torture, agony, etc).. then I will admit to a contradiction of reason between an all-loving God and one who will give individuals alive to eternally torture them.. and at that point I will have to choose to keep hold of my faith and be legitametly referred to as irrational.. or-- do change religion or become an atheist or agnostic.

Question 5

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

I never said God was emotionless. I implied that the belief that mans description of God is imperfect due to the difficulty of describing the workings of an infinite being. (I try to stay away from poetics.. in this case I fail). That is why I gave an example of the kid with the quantum physics professor. Ask a kid to describe the workings of a quantum physics professor.. far less.. the workings of his biological father. The kid would then, most likely, describe the individual in terms that he understands. Whether these terms are accurate or not is a different issue... but then again-- the question doesn't ask me if I believe them to be accurate or not. If it did, I'd be giving another answer.

As per your last part. I do have the power to believe and understand. Or do I not?

Kr wrote:

Regardless of what you may believe, this answer and reasoning is based on unprovable, purely supernatural reasoning - the assertion that there is a higher intelligence. If God were a real, omniscient, omnipotent being, we know he could not experience human emotion. To fix this problem you only offer pure baseless speculation, encouraged only by your faith.And if you claim that we cannot describe God's emotions, then you cannot understand it either.

It's based of unprovable reasoning.... yet I'm not sure how reasoning can be "supernatural." Yet the only provable piece of reasoning that I have come across is the self-evident reasoning that "I think, therefore I am." All other reasoning is unprovable because they all are based on assumptions that would further need to be reasoned.. and assumption of those.. ad infinitum. Reasoning is not something that can be proved true.. only proved false or inconsistent.

If mine is false or inconsistent.. this is the definitively irrational-- other wise I would contend I am not.

As for your contentions of a God as a real, omniscient, omnipotent being, we would know he could not experience human emotion.

I would contend this, as I did with someone else: On what grounds do you claim to "know" what a omniscient, omnipotent being could or not experience? If by empirical data.. then please.. show me or relate to me your experience or evidence of such a being who could not do this. And, if by reasoning, then I believe this would all come down to how you define omniscient and omnipotent.

Respond.. and then I believe we can continue on that part.

Question 6

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

Refer to Answer 4 once again. As for the implication of God and desire. Where has the proposition that God cannot logically have desire been established?

He has a desire to create. And so he does. Hm. If you're refering to the immutableness of God.. and that logical deducation.. refer to question 23.. or whatever it was.

Kr wrote:

An omniscient being knows all; past, present, future. He knows every outcome of every situation. To have desire to have or create something is a desire to know or experience it. An omniscient being already knows these things. Creation of something by an omniscient, omnipotent being cannot lead to a purpose without desire to experience the progression. An Omnipotent, Omniscient being is dependent on nothing and does not need means to an end. The end product is just as easily accomplished and is neither needed nor desired.With that out of the way, and the assumption that God exists, he created us "just 'cus," which makes no sense.

One again.. I will answer in a manner I answered someone response that argued this. (bypassing of course you use of the word omniscient.. for I will need a more precise definition. Capacity to know all things? Or he knows all things?.. and further such clarification.)

A desire to have or create something is a desire to know or experience it. This is correct. And if the definition only included 'know' I would not be able to answer.. but it also includes 'experience.' To know something and to 'experience' something are two very different things.

One requires passage of time.. the other does not. You may counter that God is atemporal.. or omnitemporal.. or something of the like. I would argue that the idea of atemporality or omnitemporality (not necessarily the same word), for me at least, comes down to my understanding of mathematics.

Feel free to reason that atemporal or omnitemporality(no necessarily the same word) is something different.. then do so. Or.. if you wish to use empirical evidence.. do so as well.

My understanding of atemporal as an accurate description of God is this. If God be an eternal being.. then he has no beginning.. and seemingly no end-- (since he has not ended yet). If this be the case.. then trying to define him within a time would look something like this.. compared to my definition in time.

1983-----------2007 (This end date is not my death.. merely a designated of the present.)<----------------2007 (This is not God's death.. but merely the designated of the present.)

Since he has no beginning his experiences would be infinite since his life has, even now, been infinitely long (mathematically speaking).

Being infinitely long, ever finite moment in time would be considered, to him, insignifcantly small.. and by insignificant I mean 0. For any finite number divided by infinite is 0.. there is no ratio.. is no comparison.

That is my understanding of temporal.. that is my logic, my reasoning. Contest.. or state your own.

Question 7

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

See Answer 4. Smiling

Kr wrote:

I'm going to skip this one for obvious reasons.

Agreed.

Question 8

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

Agreed. We found common ground. In that it's not relevant to me I mean. Smiling

Kr wrote:

Thank Allah.

Hah.

Question 9

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

Hm.. I never said miracles don't happen. I said that I do not believe miracles should be, or can be, the basis for faith. Two very different things.

Kr wrote:

I took you to mean you did not believe in modern day miracles. Either way, my original answer stands.

Same as mine.

Question 10

RhadtheGizmo wrote:

Again. Refer to Answer 4.

Furthermore. I don't believe that this experiment is for Gods benefit, but rather the universe as a whole , as well as man-- difficult as it may be to understand.

But even as the pain of learning the fire burns is a painful lesson to learn for a child, so is that sin is evil one difficult to ingrain I'd imagine.

Furthermore, similarities between Greek mythology and the Bible do exists... however, they depart on a couple points.

1.) The purpose of the wager. One proposes entertainmet, the other proposes universal education.

2.) The character of God. Greek mythology is usually filled with stories of man reaching out to God at their own peril. The other a story of God reaching out to Man at His own peril.

I digress..

Kr wrote:

What is the purpose of the wager? We have already established that God is omniscient and already knows the outcome of all scenarios. As for universal education; again, God is supposed to be omniscient. If one believes in God and what he tells them, what need is there for anything further? If someone does not believe in God, they do not believe in Job either.In the story of Job, I believe more than any other, God especially, and Satan, are represented as not being omniscient and converging in a way that resembles human behavior, just like the gods of mythology.

We haven't established that.. because you have just introduced the word omniscient in this response (a couple questions before). But.. let me temporarily accept what I believe you mean by the word in this case.

God is omniscient. Angels are not. Neither is Man. And.. there seems to be an implication that Satan is presented as omniscient.. which, I don't know where this assumption comes from. Also.. there is an assumption that no other created beings were created and live in the universe. (Which would seem rather illogical to me.. but-- may not be necessary).

Furthermore.. your contention that once a person believes or does not believe in God-- that this is the end all.

But.. since I have to assume to answer this question that God exists.. and has exists.. and the Bible relates truth.. then-- at the beginning.. Adam and Eve believed in God-- yet it was not the end all of sin.

Within the construct of the Bible.. there would seem to be a suggestion that there must now exist a sufficient amount of time to transpire before the curiousity that first brought about separation be satisfied.

In the same way that a child must have sufficient experience for his/her curiousity of touching a fire to not exist anymore. Whether one or two or three times.. depends on the child.. for us.. I suppose it would depend on everyone as a whole.

As for the story of Job. Yes.. you are correct.. they probably are most similar to the gods of different mythological pantheons here in this book. Agreed.

I did agree, however, last time that they have similarities.. only that they diverge on those two points.

Anyways.. I hope my responses were sufficiently rational to continue this conversation.

You seemed to have a problem with the word 'omniscient' in your last response. By omniscient I mean all knowing; knowing everything from the past, present and future. There would be absolutely nothing in this universe or beyond that an omniscient being would not know. It is not the capacity to know all things, as you asked in one of the questions, but to know all things without the task of learning.

By the way, Red Bull, that's why I said I was awake for my last post... just downed one of the big ones.

Question 2

Quote:

Ah. I understand, I think, now.

Yes.. I believe the bible does suggest that unfallen angels are in communion with God (as much as one can be), and therefore eternal from their point of creation.

But what I mean by my statement is that the Bible doesn't necessitate the Angel "be" in that particular place for eternity.

As for the burning sword and the purpose of it's use, or at least it's description, in the Bible when Adam and Even would not understand such an icon.

Once again. Agreed that Adam and Even probably wouldn't have understood what a sword was, it being a sword. Here are my responses (assumptions, that if you are willing to accept as sound-- would answer this question).. any of which are rational, in that they don't contradict any other assumption I have stated or implied (I believe).

1.) It is not necessary to contemplate the implications of a sword without knowing what it is. A wild animal contemplates the danger of a spear..

I do not believe they contemplate it's entirety-- in that I mean: it's makeup, it's construction. 2.) That if a writer of a future time writes a story relayed to him by past generations, he cannot apply is own knowledge of his time onto the story passed along.

By this I mean. I tell my Son: I don't know how to describe it, it was huge, and burned of fire. Shinned like the sun but was formed like a polished rock. It was shaped like this (insert rudimentury drawing in the sand). My Son passes this along.. so on and so on. Until at some point someone realizes what it is.

Scientists, anthropologist, do this.. when interpreting ancient civilizations descriptions of solar eclipses and the Northern Lights.

Hm.. if neither of these you are willing to accept as viable assumptions. I will attempt another. I accept them, because they appear to me to be rational. But I am trying to get you to accept them (the assumption.. not belief in God or proof of his existence).

I suppose as far as theological speculation on your part goes, these answers could be acceptable. Still, you must admit they are unlikely (if you assume the Bible is true, of course). I obviously do not accept them. While the Genesis story alone is outlandish and unbelievable to a skeptic, such guesses would be held in even lower esteem. If I believed in the Bible, which I did not too long ago, I might accept this answer as a 'maybe', but concider it an unlikely posibility.

Question 3

Quote:

You are correct in this. I misread. But at least I clarified the question as to my intention, yes?

Now to this next part.

I never said you said proofed.. I stated that the question said that it "proved" that man originated in Africa... I was addressing that.

As for the existence of evidence, I would agree, as I did, that there is evidence supporting the idea that man originated in Africa.

"Sufficient evidence to suggest.." Yes.

"Lack of evidence to dispute.." Yes.

Rewind 500 years.

"Sufficient evidence to suggest the world is stationary.." Yes

"Lack of evidence to dispute.." Yes

--

I was only trying to point out that if science, as I assume you believe it to be, has no stated or defined goal other than to discover.. how can you say that science is anywhere closer to absolute proof of anything? Tommorrow the dichotomy may change.. it was only within the past hundred years that members of the scientific community let ideas of dark matter enter the equation.. or fourth dimension.. or.. the "uncertainty principle." Scientific theory is the fitting of fact to and idea. Scientific experimentation is the idea of disproving a possibilities (you eliminate as many as you can.. then you make a theory-- which is open to be disproved at a future time).

As for "Religion fails miserably in the field of evidence".. not necessarily.

If you religion believes in the existence of what would be considered now a supernatural being... then yes. For the limitations of science (as it is now-- I must always put this qualification in, for the limitations maybe different tommorrow) would restrict that religious person to stating a theory that exists within the laws of nature (as we understand them now). As soon as the word supernatural slipped into the peer reviewed paper it would, or should be, discounted. (Intelligent Design has this problem... I do not believe that it can fit into the world of science as we now limit science to be.).

But.. I was taking issue with your statement.. for it presumes that Religion lacks evidence.. not that it lacks scientific (as we now define scientific) credibility. For scientific credibility requires that you explain the evidence using natural means.

However.. from a purely theoretical standpoint.. scientific theory and religious theory with regards to the beginning of the Universe are equally unprovable and equally evidenced. After all.. the only evidence we have is that we are here. The rest is a matter of whether it "could have" been one way or another.

Let’s start at 'Rewind 500 years.' True, 500 years ago there was not much known evidence to suggest a heliocentric universe, but I think there's another point to be made here. Copernicus cam along and published his works on heliocentric in the mid-1500's and then Galileo did so in the early 1600's. The idea of a heliocentric solar system was in direct contradiction to the church. It wasn't until 1822 that the pope, Pope Pius VII, permanently lifted the ban on heliocentric works. This all just goes to show how wrong theistic teachings can be in light of the evidence.

As for the rest: It is true that tomorrow our understanding of some part of the natural world my change, improve or unlock new questions, but that's not to say that it is a step backward. In the way of science, I believe you agreed, religion carries little weight, but you also mentioned that when it comes to some things, such as the beginning of the universe, science does not know the answer to. It is true that we cannot now, nor probably ever, prove how the universe began, but we produce working theories from evidence, however limited at times. Theists have the luxury of a simple answer, "God did it." But still, that isn't a real answer, that's giving up. Still, though we can't definitively prove the big bang; we can certainly calculate how long ago it was. And that is in clear contradiction with the Bible.

Question 4

Quote:

I do not accept Hell within the understanding that you presumed I did.. that being one of eternal agony and/or torture and/or torment.

None of these versus require me to understand it in such a way.

If.. you point me to some verse that requires me to understand it in the way that I stated before.. (torture, agony, etc).. then I will admit to a contradiction of reason between an all-loving God and one who will give individuals alive to eternally torture them.. and at that point I will have to choose to keep hold of my faith and be legitametly referred to as irrational.. or-- do change religion or become an atheist or agnostic.

Alright, here are some passages where Jesus talks about Hell. I'm sure I can dig up some more for you if you want.

Here, Jesus is telling about the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus. Lararus went to Heaven, the rich man to hell.

Luke 16: (23) And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.(24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.(25) But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.(26) And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.(27) Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: (28) For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Here, Jesus is talking to his disciples about evangelizing. He explains the reward for spreading the word and the punishment for those who choose not to convert. He tells this through the parable of the Seeds and Tares.

Matthew 13: (40) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. (41)The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; (42)And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (43)Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. ***Skipping ahead a bit*** (49)So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, (50)And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Here, Jesus explains how those who do not treat others well will be condemned to hell. Notice mainly the first and last verse.

Matthew 25: (41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink (43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. (44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? (45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Question 5

Quote:

It's based of unprovable reasoning.... yet I'm not sure how reasoning can be "supernatural." Yet the only provable piece of reasoning that I have come across is the self-evident reasoning that "I think, therefore I am." All other reasoning is unprovable because they all are based on assumptions that would further need to be reasoned.. and assumption of those.. ad infinitum. Reasoning is not something that can be proved true.. only proved false or inconsistent.

If mine is false or inconsistent.. this is the definitively irrational-- other wise I would contend I am not.

As for your contentions of a God as a real, omniscient, omnipotent being, we would know he could not experience human emotion.

I would contend this, as I did with someone else: On what grounds do you claim to "know" what a omniscient, omnipotent being could or not experience? If by empirical data.. then please.. show me or relate to me your experience or evidence of such a being who could not do this. And, if by reasoning, then I believe this would all come down to how you define omniscient and omnipotent.

Respond.. and then I believe we can continue on that part.

I believe my answer to question 6 the last time around answered this as best as could be for now. To clarify on this point I believe we need to resolve your argument on question 6 first.

Question 6

Quote:

One again.. I will answer in a manner I answered someone response that argued this. (bypassing of course you use of the word omniscient.. for I will need a more precise definition. Capacity to know all things? Or he knows all things?.. and further such clarification.)

A desire to have or create something is a desire to know or experience it. This is correct. And if the definition only included 'know' I would not be able to answer.. but it also includes 'experience.' To know something and to 'experience' something are two very different things.

One requires passage of time.. the other does not. You may counter that God is atemporal.. or omnitemporal.. or something of the like. I would argue that the idea of atemporality or omnitemporality (not necessarily the same word), for me at least, comes down to my understanding of mathematics.

Feel free to reason that atemporal or omnitemporality(no necessarily the same word) is something different.. then do so. Or.. if you wish to use empirical evidence.. do so as well.

My understanding of atemporal as an accurate description of God is this. If God be an eternal being.. then he has no beginning.. and seemingly no end-- (since he has not ended yet). If this be the case.. then trying to define him within a time would look something like this.. compared to my definition in time.

1983-----------2007 (This end date is not my death.. merely a designated of the present.) <----------------2007 (This is not God's death.. but merely the designated of the present.)

Since he has no beginning his experiences would be infinite since his life has, even now, been infinitely long (mathematically speaking).

Being infinitely long, ever finite moment in time would be considered, to him, insignifcantly small.. and by insignificant I mean 0. For any finite number divided by infinite is 0.. there is no ratio.. is no comparison.

That is my understanding of temporal.. that is my logic, my reasoning. Contest.. or state your own.

To experience something is to know it by doing it. We desire certain experiences for many reasons; for the feeling it may give us, as a means to accomplish something that we desire or are required to do or to better learn about something. An omnipotent being needs not create something for a feeling, nor does it need it to accomplish an end result. An omniscient being already knows what it is lik eto experience and does have anything to learn from it.

As for the atemporality of a god; I don't see how its relevant to desire.

And a finite number divided by infinity equals infinity... not that it matters.

Question 10

Quote:

We haven't established that.. because you have just introduced the word omniscient in this response (a couple questions before). But.. let me temporarily accept what I believe you mean by the word in this case.

God is omniscient. Angels are not. Neither is Man. And.. there seems to be an implication that Satan is presented as omniscient.. which, I don't know where this assumption comes from. Also.. there is an assumption that no other created beings were created and live in the universe. (Which would seem rather illogical to me.. but-- may not be necessary).

Furthermore.. your contention that once a person believes or does not believe in God-- that this is the end all.

But.. since I have to assume to answer this question that God exists.. and has exists.. and the Bible relates truth.. then-- at the beginning.. Adam and Eve believed in God-- yet it was not the end all of sin.

Within the construct of the Bible.. there would seem to be a suggestion that there must now exist a sufficient amount of time to transpire before the curiousity that first brought about separation be satisfied.

In the same way that a child must have sufficient experience for his/her curiousity of touching a fire to not exist anymore. Whether one or two or three times.. depends on the child.. for us.. I suppose it would depend on everyone as a whole.

As for the story of Job. Yes.. you are correct.. they probably are most similar to the gods of different mythological pantheons here in this book. Agreed.

I did agree, however, last time that they have similarities.. only that they diverge on those two points.

I didn't mean we had establish omniscience in that one question, but before in other points. Maybe it was just me who mentioned it before... I'm too lazy to go back and read through it all to find out.

As far as angels and Satan (who would be a fallen angel) not being omniscient, I agree that they would not be. My response was just poorly worded. I meant to emphasize God's omnipotence, not that of Satan.

I never said that once someone believes in God or does not believe in God, that it is the end all be all. I know that isn't true, otherwise I would still be a Christian. What I was saying is that those who do not believe in God, would not believe in Job either. And those who do believe in God and his omnipotence don't need the example of Job to believe what the Bible says about sin.

You also bring up an interesting point about Adam and Eve and the original sin. Why would God put the Tree of Life right in front of them if he didn't want them to eat from it? Then, why would he allow satan to manipulate Eve, who was obviously very impressionable just as God made her? God should have full power over Saten, yet he allows him to do things such as this? If anything, it seems like God wanted sin. There is really no other explanation.

Woooo.. hold up. Before I even get started on the rest-- which I may not be able to do right now.. it's 6am: only reason I'm not asleep is because once again, Red Bull.

Ever had one of those monstrous monster energy drinks? That's just..... odd. But good. Heh.

Okay.. as for my quick question.

Kr wrote:

And a finite number divided by infinity equals infinity... not that it matters.

4/infinity = 0

10^10/infinity = 0

I'm speaking of ratios.. using what I remember from calculus and limits..

which is to say.. relatively speaking any finite number when compared to infinity is effectively 0.

Mathematically I believe I am correct on this one.. but-- I am open to discussion about it. Your statement on this issue was just so contrary to what I had thought I learned.. that I had to take quick issue.

You seemed to have a problem with the word 'omniscient' in your last response. By omniscient I mean all knowing; knowing everything from the past, present and future. There would be absolutely nothing in this universe or beyond that an omniscient being would not know. It is not the capacity to know all things, as you asked in one of the questions, but to know all things without the task of learning.

Oh.. well in this case.. I would have to disagree with your usage-- or at least say that if I use it, I am using it differently.

I do use the word omnipotent.. and by that I mean that the power of God (in the sense that I believe him to be) is so much greater then anything I can comprehend (e.g. the power to create a universe) that I state him to be omnipotent. Power with seemingly no end.

In this same manner I say the I believe the universe is infinite: in so much that it seemly has no end.

Granted.. using this word does seem to have implications-- if he is seemingly all-powerful.. then it would seem to infer that he has the power of anything. Anything would include the capacity to know (in the literal sense) everything, past, present, future.

But capacity does not designate action or actuality.

I have the capacity to kill someone, does not mean that I necessarily have done so in the past or present.

So.. my use of the word omnipotent refers to the seemingly endlessness of Gods power as represented by the Bible.. and that this belief, if correct in actuality, would require me to believe his capacity expands to every facet of how we would understand the applicability of the word power-- e.g. the power to know all.

But.. capacity does not equate to actuality.

Therefore.. I would not agree that God necessarily knows, in the sense that we are using it here, past present and future.

I could however, argue, that he, being omnipotent allows him the ability to be infinitely intelligent, or not, that he does have a capacity of perfect foresight, or not. Sort of how a scientist predicts the conclusion to an experiment... multiply that times infinity... and that would be the concept of perfect foresight.

It is not that one knows it by experience and that it has happened already, but knows it in the sense that he has the capacity of perfect prediction.

All these words of functions of the word omnipotence. And even omnipotence, in the biblical sense, cannot be known to a certainty.. even as the concept of an infinite universe cannot be.. or of.. anything else for that matter (except for one thing.. one thing can be known for certain in my opinion-- and it isn't God). It is only a description of how to we see things to be now.

First I agree.. and second I do not. In so much as I would have to agree that he has the capacity to be omniscient as a function of his omnipotence.

Question 2

Quote:

Ah. I understand, I think, now.

Yes.. I believe the bible does suggest that unfallen angels are in communion with God (as much as one can be), and therefore eternal from their point of creation.

But what I mean by my statement is that the Bible doesn't necessitate the Angel "be" in that particular place for eternity.

As for the burning sword and the purpose of it's use, or at least it's description, in the Bible when Adam and Even would not understand such an icon.

Once again. Agreed that Adam and Even probably wouldn't have understood what a sword was, it being a sword. Here are my responses (assumptions, that if you are willing to accept as sound-- would answer this question).. any of which are rational, in that they don't contradict any other assumption I have stated or implied (I believe).

1.) It is not necessary to contemplate the implications of a sword without knowing what it is. A wild animal contemplates the danger of a spear..

I do not believe they contemplate it's entirety-- in that I mean: it's makeup, it's construction.2.) That if a writer of a future time writes a story relayed to him by past generations, he cannot apply is own knowledge of his time onto the story passed along.

By this I mean. I tell my Son: I don't know how to describe it, it was huge, and burned of fire. Shinned like the sun but was formed like a polished rock. It was shaped like this (insert rudimentury drawing in the sand). My Son passes this along.. so on and so on. Until at some point someone realizes what it is.

Scientists, anthropologist, do this.. when interpreting ancient civilizations descriptions of solar eclipses and the Northern Lights.

Hm.. if neither of these you are willing to accept as viable assumptions. I will attempt another. I accept them, because they appear to me to be rational. But I am trying to get you to accept them (the assumption.. not belief in God or proof of his existence).

KR wrote:

I suppose as far as theological speculation on your part goes, these answers could be acceptable. Still, you must admit they are unlikely (if you assume the Bible is true, of course). I obviously do not accept them. While the Genesis story alone is outlandish and unbelievable to a skeptic, such guesses would be held in even lower esteem.If I believed in the Bible, which I did not too long ago, I might accept this answer as a 'maybe', but concider it an unlikely posibility.

I must admit nothing.

Neither do I admit, at this point in time, that they are unlikely (if I assume the Bible is true).

I do not see where I 'must do' this either rationally or otherwise.

I see that you do not accept them.. I do not contend that.

And if agree with your contention that the genesis story alone is outlandish and unbelievable to a skeptic.. so I would contend the idea of the eternality of the universe to a skeptic.

For the idea of an omnipotent God, which would make everything following not so outlandish (in the fact that we are here), or the idea of an eternal universe, which would make everything following not so outlandish (in the fact that we are here).

If a skeptic is looking for truth.. I believe he will only come to one invariable truth. If a skeptic is just one who questions what has not been answered.. then, I would contend that, he would hold no 'acceptable' answers in 'lower esteem'

Question 3

Quote:

You are correct in this. I misread. But at least I clarified the question as to my intention, yes?

Now to this next part.

I never said you said proofed.. I stated that the question said that it "proved" that man originated in Africa... I was addressing that.

As for the existence of evidence, I would agree, as I did, that there is evidence supporting the idea that man originated in Africa.

"Sufficient evidence to suggest.." Yes.

"Lack of evidence to dispute.." Yes.

Rewind 500 years.

"Sufficient evidence to suggest the world is stationary.." Yes

"Lack of evidence to dispute.." Yes

--

I was only trying to point out that if science, as I assume you believe it to be, has no stated or defined goal other than to discover.. how can you say that science is anywhere closer to absolute proof of anything? Tommorrow the dichotomy may change.. it was only within the past hundred years that members of the scientific community let ideas of dark matter enter the equation.. or fourth dimension.. or.. the "uncertainty principle." Scientific theory is the fitting of fact to and idea. Scientific experimentation is the idea of disproving a possibilities (you eliminate as many as you can.. then you make a theory-- which is open to be disproved at a future time).

As for "Religion fails miserably in the field of evidence".. not necessarily.

If you religion believes in the existence of what would be considered now a supernatural being... then yes. For the limitations of science (as it is now-- I must always put this qualification in, for the limitations maybe different tommorrow) would restrict that religious person to stating a theory that exists within the laws of nature (as we understand them now). As soon as the word supernatural slipped into the peer reviewed paper it would, or should be, discounted. (Intelligent Design has this problem... I do not believe that it can fit into the world of science as we now limit science to be.).

But.. I was taking issue with your statement.. for it presumes that Religion lacks evidence.. not that it lacks scientific (as we now define scientific) credibility. For scientific credibility requires that you explain the evidence using natural means.

However.. from a purely theoretical standpoint.. scientific theory and religious theory with regards to the beginning of the Universe are equally unprovable and equally evidenced. After all.. the only evidence we have is that we are here. The rest is a matter of whether it "could have" been one way or another.

Quote:

Let’s start at 'Rewind 500 years.'True, 500 years ago there was not much known evidence to suggest a heliocentric universe, but I think there's another point to be made here. Copernicus cam along and published his works on heliocentric in the mid-1500's and then Galileo did so in the early 1600's. The idea of a heliocentric solar system was in direct contradiction to the church. It wasn't until 1822 that the pope, Pope Pius VII, permanently lifted the ban on heliocentric works. This all just goes to show how wrong theistic teachings can be in light of the evidence.

As for the rest:It is true that tomorrow our understanding of some part of the natural world my change, improve or unlock new questions, but that's not to say that it is a step backward. In the way of science, I believe you agreed, religion carries little weight, but you also mentioned that when it comes to some things, such as the beginning of the universe, science does not know the answer to. It is true that we cannot now, nor probably ever, prove how the universe began, but we produce working theories from evidence, however limited at times. Theists have the luxury of a simple answer, "God did it." But still, that isn't a real answer, that's giving up.Still, though we can't definitively prove the big bang; we can certainly calculate how long ago it was. And that is in clear contradiction with the Bible.

For your first part: Yes.. I have given evidence that the establishment of religion during the 16th century retarded real progress.

As for the rest: I never said that it was to say "that it is a step backward." Far from it.. you can step backwards.. or forwards.. when you have to destination to which to speak of-- which is what science is.

"but we produce working theories from [current] evidence, however limited at times." I did a little editing to clarify for myself.. if I am wrong as to what you meant, correct me.

Theists do have the luxury of stating this.. and if the only assumptions they make are:1.) God can do anything.2.) God can do this.

Then by all means.. they are being rational.

However.. most theists do not exist in this bubble. They usually make other assumptions as well.. and it is on these other assumptions that you can reasonably prove them to be irrational by proving them to be contradictory.

As for the simple answer.. I think you make a misrepresentation.. I believe the majority of christians would-- after gradually being led back to the beginning.. have to give the "simple answer".. "God was"-- but.. in that same avenue of going backwards an atheist would have to say.. "God was not, something else was." Whether that something else be is inconsequential.. they are both equally simple answers.

Things I am not saying within this argument:a.) I am not saying that religion is a science.b.) I am not saying that science is a religion.c.) I am not saying that God is an unprovable entity.d.) I am not saying that "something else" is an unprovable entity.

Merely seeing that, at our current time, they are equally unprovable and provable as stated within the last question I believe.

Question 4

Quote:

I do not accept Hell within the understanding that you presumed I did.. that being one of eternal agony and/or torture and/or torment.

None of these versus require me to understand it in such a way.

If.. you point me to some verse that requires me to understand it in the way that I stated before.. (torture, agony, etc).. then I will admit to a contradiction of reason between an all-loving God and one who will give individuals alive to eternally torture them.. and at that point I will have to choose to keep hold of my faith and be legitametly referred to as irrational.. or-- do change religion or become an atheist or agnostic.

RM wrote:

Alright, here are some passages where Jesus talks about Hell. I'm sure I can dig up some more for you if you want.

Here, Jesus is telling about the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus. Lararus went to Heaven, the rich man to hell.

Luke 16: (23) And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.(24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.(25) But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.(26) And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.(27) Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: (28) For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Here, Jesus is talking to his disciples about evangelizing. He explains the reward for spreading the word and the punishment for those who choose not to convert. He tells this through the parable of the Seeds and Tares.

Matthew 13: (40) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. (41) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; (42) And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (43) Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. ***Skipping ahead a bit*** (49) So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, (50) And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Here, Jesus explains how those who do not treat others well will be condemned to hell. Notice mainly the first and last verse.

Matthew 25: (41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink (43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. (44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? (45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Alright. I must clear something up for myself before I counterargue.

1.) Do you realize that the three examples you gave me were within the context of a parable or within the context of scripturally denoted metaphor?if you do, 2.) do you believe it necessary for me to defend these parables in the same way I would have to defend something like... Jesus said: "Love your neighbor as yourself" or his non parable references to heaven?

Question 5

Quote:

It's based of unprovable reasoning.... yet I'm not sure how reasoning can be "supernatural." Yet the only provable piece of reasoning that I have come across is the self-evident reasoning that "I think, therefore I am." All other reasoning is unprovable because they all are based on assumptions that would further need to be reasoned.. and assumption of those.. ad infinitum. Reasoning is not something that can be proved true.. only proved false or inconsistent.

If mine is false or inconsistent.. this is the definitively irrational-- other wise I would contend I am not.

As for your contentions of a God as a real, omniscient, omnipotent being, we would know he could not experience human emotion.

I would contend this, as I did with someone else: On what grounds do you claim to "know" what a omniscient, omnipotent being could or not experience? If by empirical data.. then please.. show me or relate to me your experience or evidence of such a being who could not do this. And, if by reasoning, then I believe this would all come down to how you define omniscient and omnipotent.

Respond.. and then I believe we can continue on that part.

Kr wrote:

I believe my answer to question 6 the last time around answered this as best as could be for now. To clarify on this point I believe we need to resolve your argument on question 6 first.

Alright.. I'm moving down to 6.

Question 6

Quote:

One again.. I will answer in a manner I answered someone response that argued this. (bypassing of course you use of the word omniscient.. for I will need a more precise definition. Capacity to know all things? Or he knows all things?.. and further such clarification.)

A desire to have or create something is a desire to know or experience it. This is correct. And if the definition only included 'know' I would not be able to answer.. but it also includes 'experience.' To know something and to 'experience' something are two very different things.

One requires passage of time.. the other does not. You may counter that God is atemporal.. or omnitemporal.. or something of the like. I would argue that the idea of atemporality or omnitemporality (not necessarily the same word), for me at least, comes down to my understanding of mathematics.

Feel free to reason that atemporal or omnitemporality(no necessarily the same word) is something different.. then do so. Or.. if you wish to use empirical evidence.. do so as well.

My understanding of atemporal as an accurate description of God is this. If God be an eternal being.. then he has no beginning.. and seemingly no end-- (since he has not ended yet). If this be the case.. then trying to define him within a time would look something like this.. compared to my definition in time.

1983-----------2007 (This end date is not my death.. merely a designated of the present.)<----------------2007 (This is not God's death.. but merely the designated of the present.)

Since he has no beginning his experiences would be infinite since his life has, even now, been infinitely long (mathematically speaking).

Being infinitely long, ever finite moment in time would be considered, to him, insignifcantly small.. and by insignificant I mean 0. For any finite number divided by infinite is 0.. there is no ratio.. is no comparison.

That is my understanding of temporal.. that is my logic, my reasoning. Contest.. or state your own.

Kr wrote:

To experience something is to know it by doing it. We desire certain experiences for many reasons; for the feeling it may give us, as a means to accomplish something that we desire or are required to do or to better learn about something. An omnipotent being needs not create something for a feeling, nor does it need it to accomplish an end result. An omniscient being already knows what it is lik eto experience and does have anything to learn from it.

I would not agree that "to desire certain experiences" is equivalent to "to desire certain experiences for the purpose of feelings" or "to desire certain experiences for the purpose to accomplish something that we desire (which, at this point would be circular. desire>experience>accomplish something we desire>experience>to accomplish.... etc.) or are required to do or to better learn about something."

I believe one can desire an experience for the sake of experience itself. I would contend that just because I have fully experienced the riches of walking in this moment does not mean that my desire to experience walking has stopped in this moment or the next.

Kr wrote:

As for the atemporality of a god; I don't see how its relevant to desire.

And a finite number divided by infinity equals infinity... not that it matters.

Well.. as for it's relevance. Only so far as to state my use of the word atemporal.

Question 10

Quote:

We haven't established that.. because you have just introduced the word omniscient in this response (a couple questions before). But.. let me temporarily accept what I believe you mean by the word in this case.

God is omniscient. Angels are not. Neither is Man. And.. there seems to be an implication that Satan is presented as omniscient.. which, I don't know where this assumption comes from. Also.. there is an assumption that no other created beings were created and live in the universe. (Which would seem rather illogical to me.. but-- may not be necessary).

Furthermore.. your contention that once a person believes or does not believe in God-- that this is the end all.

But.. since I have to assume to answer this question that God exists.. and has exists.. and the Bible relates truth.. then-- at the beginning.. Adam and Eve believed in God-- yet it was not the end all of sin.

Within the construct of the Bible.. there would seem to be a suggestion that there must now exist a sufficient amount of time to transpire before the curiousity that first brought about separation be satisfied.

In the same way that a child must have sufficient experience for his/her curiousity of touching a fire to not exist anymore. Whether one or two or three times.. depends on the child.. for us.. I suppose it would depend on everyone as a whole.

As for the story of Job. Yes.. you are correct.. they probably are most similar to the gods of different mythological pantheons here in this book. Agreed.

I did agree, however, last time that they have similarities.. only that they diverge on those two points.

Kr wrote:

I didn't mean we had establish omniscience in that one question, but before in other points. Maybe it was just me who mentioned it before... I'm too lazy to go back and read through it all to find out.

As far as angels and Satan (who would be a fallen angel) not being omniscient, I agree that they would not be. My response was just poorly worded. I meant to emphasize God's omnipotence, not that of Satan.

I see.

RM wrote:

I never said that once someone believes in God or does not believe in God, that it is the end all be all. I know that isn't true, otherwise I would still be a Christian. What I was saying is that those who do not believe in God, would not believe in Job either. And those who do believe in God and his omnipotence don't need the example of Job to believe what the Bible says about sin.

You also bring up an interesting point about Adam and Eve and the original sin.

Why would God put the Tree of Life right in front of them if he didn't want them to eat from it?

Then, why would he allow satan to manipulate Eve, who was obviously very impressionable just as God made her?

God should have full power over Saten, yet he allows him to do things such as this?

If anything, it seems like God wanted sin. There is really no other explanation.

"There is really no other explanation" and "I do not see any other reasonable explanation" are different things.

First off... I was meaning to say that you seemed to be stating that "if" God existed that the belief in him or lack thereof would be the end all be all for that particular person.. and therefore why let time pass any longer for this particular person.

Second: Here is another explanation... reasonable within one interpretation of the contextual assumptions of the Bible. First.. that Satan sinned (by whatever matter you define sin).. that God had the "choice" to kill him or not.

But to kill one instantly would appear contrary to others observing as to the existence of "free will".. for it would mean.. any choice contrary to what God wishes for you would mean your immediate death.

So.. to let him live with the option, and so the 'experiment' begins. Sure.. as you state.. God could have restricted the Devil to a bubble with no affect on anything.. but would this not be the same idea as death in the first place? Of course his unanswered question would still remain I suppose.. how would life be to "know" in some small sense, what God knew, that being, life contrary to what he would wish existence to be... a perfect state of harmony.

An unanswered question left unanswered will inevitably lead at least one other curious individual to try and answer it or know it. (And since all of creation, angels, beings, anything of conscience, free will nature, has curiousity.. it would merely happen again.)

What I'm saying. to compress the idea is this.. the idea, within the construct of one interpretation of the bibles assumptions, is that sin was inevitable. If not the Devil.. if man.. then.. someone else.. and someone else.

So far it seems like pretty much the only thing you have to say is basically that if something is not self contradcitory "anything is possible". It is what every argument you make boils down to and it is hardly worth discussing. It is an irrelevant point as far as any human being is concerned. I am willing to concede that point instead of waste space discussing something so pointless. However, if you contend that it is rational to think that simply because something is possible it actually is, then I disagree and that is probably where the discussion would have some resemblance to a matter worthy of discussion.

If there is any point you are making within all this mess of quotes and such that doesn't basically boil down to 'anything is possible' point it out and we can discuss it further.

There is also this;

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

Rhadthegizmo wrote:

Vessel wrote:

A chance is not an equal chance and walking is not driving my car. I can achieve the exact same thing by the exact same method with or without religion. It is useless in unique abilities aside from allowing people to believe in an afterlife and a god both of which hold very dangerous possibilities.

So.. if religion does have some benifit (not necessarily unique) then our debate would have to turn which one is more efficient. Then we would need to weigh cost and benefits.. etc.

No because the benefit of driving my car to the casino is a unique benefit. It is not the same as walking to the casino. The benefit is getting better quicker and easier, not simply getting better. You arbitrarily set the benefit at arriving at the casino or getting better and discarded the unique benefits and then said that they didn't exist.

What you are saying here is that it is a "unique benefit" to be able to get to the casino quicker and easier.

When you use the word unique.. do you not mean incomparable to other things? So how could you use the words quicker and easier, which are intristically comparative, for a unique benefit?

I state this because.. we can try to have an argument about which is better, easier, quicker to bring about any benefit which you perceive theism to have and that atheism can replace.. but-- that would be kind of hard.

I'm not sure I want to say my moral journey was easier, better, quicker, more fulfilling then yours.... where would that go?

This is really a silly analogy and I think you know that but you just don't want to admit it. let's look at it this way;

Gasoline has many benefits. Because of gasoline I can drive my car, I can use my lawn mower, I can use many other machines that I would not be able to use without gasoline.

Name any benefits provided by religion.

When you name them we will discuss them and see if your analogy holds.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

So far it seems like pretty much the only thing you have to say is basically that if something is not self contradcitory "anything is possible". It is what every argument you make boils down to and it is hardly worth discussing. It is an irrelevant point as far as any human being is concerned. I am willing to concede that point instead of waste space discussing something so pointless. However, if you contend that it is rational to think that simply because something is possible it actually is, then I disagree and that is probably where the discussion would have some resemblance to a matter worthy of discussion.

If there is any point you are making within all this mess of quotes and such that doesn't basically boil down to 'anything is possible' point it out and we can discuss it further.There is also this;

I am saying that.. within the realm or methodology of reason (also known as rationality) anything that is not self contradictory is rational (not necessarily that it is possible).

My purpose in coming to this forum, in the first place, was my original contention that theism is inherently irrational-- I don't believe it to be the case.. and I'm arguing those points of reason where people seem to be contending why they believe it to be so.

As for the irrelevance of arguing the "anything is possible" in actuality (not using reason, because there is nothing to say that the world needs to be rational-- only that we believe it needs to be, in some sense, in order to move forward).

I would disagree in the relevance towards a human being in particular (perhaps as a whole.. irrelevant.. but individually no).

For.. if you accept that "anything is possible" (which I don't contest you have) then implication you are stating that you have choosen one of infinite possibilities. I would contest that that individual choice has relevance to your life.

If "anything is possible" then I can choose to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.. or the sun will not.. I personally choose to believe it will.. and thus live my life accordingly.

I also choose to believe the world is rational.. because I cannot understand, now, how it could be any other way.

But this was not meant to be a statement of "anything is possible" in and of itself.. only that, once again I state, within the methodology of reason (logic) that anything not self-contradictory is rationally possible.

If you believe this an incorrect statement.. by all means argue it. But I do not believe it so. As well as I do not believe it 'irrelevant' to argue the rationality of certain theism constructs when the core standing of RRS seems to be that it is not rational.

Otherwise.. the fact that RRS states this in the first place is irrelevant as well.

Vessel wrote:

A chance is not an equal chance and walking is not driving my car. I can achieve the exact same thing by the exact same method with or without religion. It is useless in unique abilities aside from allowing people to believe in an afterlife and a god both of which hold very dangerous possibilities.

RM wrote:

So.. if religion does have some benifit (not necessarily unique) then our debate would have to turn which one is more efficient. Then we would need to weigh cost and benefits.. etc.

Vessel wrote:

No because the benefit of driving my car to the casino is a unique benefit. It is not the same as walking to the casino. The benefit is getting better quicker and easier, not simply getting better. You arbitrarily set the benefit at arriving at the casino or getting better and discarded the unique benefits and then said that they didn't exist.

Vessel wrote:

What you are saying here is that it is a "unique benefit" to be able to get to the casino quicker and easier.

When you use the word unique.. do you not mean incomparable to other things? So how could you use the words quicker and easier, which are intristically comparative, for a unique benefit?

I state this because.. we can try to have an argument about which is better, easier, quicker to bring about any benefit which you perceive theism to have and that atheism can replace.. but-- that would be kind of hard.

I'm not sure I want to say my moral journey was easier, better, quicker, more fulfilling then yours.... where would that go?

Vessel wrote:

This is really a silly analogy and I think you know that but you just don't want to admit it. let's look at it this way;

Gasoline has many benefits. Because of gasoline I can drive my car, I can use my lawn mower, I can use many other machines that I would not be able to use without gasoline.

Name any benefits provided by religion.

When you name them we will discuss them and see if your analogy holds.

Okay.. let me try to put it another way.

To say that the "unique benefit" of gasoline is that you can use instruments that necessarily need gasoline (those being, gasoline powered lawn mower, gasoline powered car.) Then yes.. you are being consistent with your use of the phrase "unique benefit".

But then I can use it in the same manner when I state that : the "unique benefit" of religion is that you can can have charitable institutions that necessarily need religion (those being, religious charitable institutions.)

It seems circular to me to use "unique benefit" in such a way... or at least expanding the word very broadly. For it seems that we are ignoring what constitutes a benefit.. I don't believe that you would consider a benefit to "use a gasoline powered car".. would you? But you would consider it a benefit that it gets you from point A to point B.

Even as I would not consider it a benefit to "have a religious charitable institution".. I would consider the charity to be the benefit.

But.. if you want to continue using "unique benefit" in this way.. then I present my straw man argument as presented with the assertion of "unique benifit" and having a religious charitable institution.

If you wish to use "unique benifit" the other way... then I would say that gasoline does not have a "unique benefit" merely a comparatively better one then other options.

At which point we would move onto to a conversation about which is "comparatively better" the morality found through religion or the morality found through non-religion.. or any one of another benefits we would have to compare.

I am saying that.. within the realm or methodology of reason (also known as rationality) anything that is not self contradictory is rational (not necessarily that it is possible).

My purpose in coming to this forum, in the first place, was my original contention that theism is inherently irrational-- I don't believe it to be the case.. and I'm arguing those points of reason where people seem to be contending why they believe it to be so.

As for the irrelevance of arguing the "anything is possible" in actuality (not using reason, because there is nothing to say that the world needs to be rational-- only that we believe it needs to be, in some sense, in order to move forward).

I would disagree in the relevance towards a human being in particular (perhaps as a whole.. irrelevant.. but individually no).

For.. if you accept that "anything is possible" (which I don't contest you have) then implication you are stating that you have choosen one of infinite possibilities. I would contest that that individual choice has relevance to your life.

If "anything is possible" then I can choose to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.. or the sun will not.. I personally choose to believe it will.. and thus live my life accordingly.

I also choose to believe the world is rational.. because I cannot understand, now, how it could be any other way.

But this was not meant to be a statement of "anything is possible" in and of itself.. only that, once again I state, within the methodology of reason (logic) that anything not self-contradictory is rationally possible.

If you believe this an incorrect statement.. by all means argue it. But I do not believe it so. As well as I do not believe it 'irrelevant' to argue the rationality of certain theism constructs when the core standing of RRS seems to be that it is not rational.

Otherwise.. the fact that RRS states this in the first place is irrelevant as well.

If your contention is that believing that the non self contradictory entity I just imagined actually exists is rational, then I cannot disagree that theism is rational as well. I see no difference between believing one or the other. This however reduces the definition of rational to non contradictory so I really don't see why we would use the terms rational and irrational as opposed to contradictory and non contradcitory, and we would need to create a new word that means a highly improbable belief held even though it is unevidenced and use it to describe theism. Now, after saying that, pretty much every god I have heard descibed by theists is self contradictory so to believe in those is irrational even by such a strict definition.

There, of course, is a possibility of anything that is not contradictory, though to consider possibilities true or as existent simply becasue they are not impossible is unreasonable. That is what I am saying and really all I care to say in this area as I don't find it particularly interesting or enlightening or beneficial as a topic of discussion. It is nothing personal it just isn't a conversation that I find stimulating in any way.

Quote:

Okay.. let me try to put it another way.

To say that the "unique benefit" of gasoline is that you can use instruments that necessarily need gasoline (those being, gasoline powered lawn mower, gasoline powered car.) Then yes.. you are being consistent with your use of the phrase "unique benefit".

But then I can use it in the same manner when I state that : the "unique benefit" of religion is that you can can have charitable institutions that necessarily need religion (those being, religious charitable institutions.)

But there is no difference between a religious charitable institution and a charitable innstituion that is not religious. They are both charitable institutions. They both raise money for causes and both do so through the charitable givings of others.

My gas powered car, however, is not walking or riding a bike. If there were non gas powered machines that could do the same job as the gas powered machines in the same manner as the gas powered machine then I would probably consider gas as not being worth its inherent danger as long as the others weren't more dangerous.

Quote:

It seems circular to me to use "unique benefit" in such a way... or at least expanding the word very broadly. For it seems that we are ignoring what constitutes a benefit.. I don't believe that you would consider a benefit to "use a gasoline powered car".. would you? But you would consider it a benefit that it gets you from point A to point B.

Again this is silly. Of course its a benefit to use a gas powered car. I don't have any other kind of car and if you don't think using a car is a benefit then you must live someplace with public transportation. I do not.

This part of the conversation is becoming equally uninteresting. If you truly can see no difference between the benefit of driving a car as opposed to walking to a desired destination, and the benefit of having a religious charity as opposed to a secular one that fills the same need that is fine. Feel free to carry on in borderline absurdity.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

If your contention is that believing that the non self contradictory entity I just imagined actually exists is rational, then I cannot disagree that theism is rational as well. I see no difference between believing one or the other. This however reduces the definition of rational to non contradictory so I really don't see why we would use the terms rational and irrational as opposed to contradictory and non contradcitory, and we would need to create a new word that means a highly improbable belief held even though it is unevidenced and use it to describe theism. Now, after saying that, pretty much every god I have heard descibed by theists is self contradictory so to believe in those is irrational even by such a strict definition.

I to am getting tired of this seemingly endless circle.

For the last time.. not the "entity" but the assumptions you make surrounding that entity. A statement, in and of itself, cannot be irrational-- only when you start assuming that the person is making other assumptions does it become irrational (with what you assume he does).

Read all these definitions (or do not).. then tell me why you are saying my defintion is "strict" and how exactly you have inferred your definition from these written ones? (This is a prescriptive vs descriptive linguistic argument.. if you believe language to be descriptive.. then you can use the word any way you wish.. if it is prescriptive.. then you must infer, logically, from written definitions why you define an irrational person as one that: accepts a "highly improbably belief." Because.. I do not see how that defintion applies to that word.. only in the most liberal sense of using language at all.. like when people call Bush a fascist.)

Which defines itself with:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational–adjective1. without the *faculty of reason*; deprived of reason.2. without or *deprived of normal mental clarity* or *sound judgment.*3. not in *accordance with reason;* utterly illogical: irrational arguments.4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.5. Mathematics.a. (of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers.b. (of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two polynomials.6. Algebra. (of an equation) having an unknown under a radical sign or, alternately, with a fractional exponent.7. Greek and Latin Prosody.a. of or pertaining to a substitution in the normal metrical pattern, esp. a long syllable for a short one.b. noting a foot or meter containing such a substitution.

Which requires the defintion of the noun form of reason:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason–noun1. a basis or cause, as *for* some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.2. *a statement presented in justification* or *explanation of a belief or action.*3. the *mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.*4. *sound judgment; good sense.*5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.6. **Logic. a premise of an argument.**7. Philosophy.a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.

which requires the definition of the noun contrary's defintion.–noun6. something that is contrary or opposite: to prove the contrary of a statement.7. either of two contrary things.8. Logic. a proposition so related to another proposition that both may not be true though both may be false, as with the propositions “All judges are male” and “No judges are male.”

A proposition that two other propositions are true when, according to logic they must be false, is illogical. Something that requires contradictory assumptions are illogical. Something that requires itself to be Illogical is irrational.

And vise versa.

This is how I understand language to be developed.. and how words to be defined.

You are correct in one sense:

Quote:

create a new word that means a highly improbable belief

Yes.. we would. For rationality and irrationality do not necessarily denote probability.. just the exercise of reason and/or logic.

As for..

Quote:

..after saying that, pretty much every god I have heard descibed by theists is self contradictory

That is what the post was first meant to be-- an attempt to display a theistic belief that was not contradictory (within the assumptions it necessarily has to make).

Quote:

There, of course, is a possibility of anything that is not contradictory, though to consider possibilities true or as existent simply becasue they are not impossible is unreasonable. That is what I am saying and really all I care to say in this area as I don't find it particularly interesting or enlightening or beneficial as a topic of discussion. It is nothing personal it just isn't a conversation that I find stimulating in any way.

Once again.. the original thread was meant to answer questions which were meant to point out contradictions which necessarily needed to be held in order to be a theist.

I am not trying to say something is true.. or.. existent-- merely, once again, once again, once again, that theism is not necessarily irrational.

If by the faculties of reason one accepts this.. then, once, the two will be put on equal grounds when it comes to the concepts of reasoning and logic.

Whether God is true or not is a different matter. Whether the Universe can or has not always existent is a different matter. And whether science can prove/disprove, is more important than/less important than, the concepts of logic and reason, is a different matter.

Quote:

But there is no difference between a religious charitable institution and a charitable innstituion that is not religious.

Is a statement of comparative benefit that you have not proven to be the case, just believe to be true. I can prove that there is a difference between gasoline cars and a bike in that one gets to the casino faster than the other. (all things being equal). You cannot do the same for religious vs non religious institutions without a more full argument then:

Quote:

They are both charitable institutions. They both raise money for causes and both do so through the charitable givings of others.

For it does not address concepts of efficiency of anything merely the general concept of the benefit.

ONCE again. The general concept of the benefit between a car and a bike is transportation. This is not an argument as to which is more efficient..................

Quote:

My gas powered car, however, is not walking or riding a bike. If there were non gas powered machines that could do the same job as the gas powered machines in the same manner as the gas powered machine then I would probably consider gas as not being worth its inherent danger as long as the others weren't more dangerous.

Your right.. they are "not the same" for they have been proven to be different by countless experiences and studies.

IF there were a non "religious charitable institution" that could do the same job as the "religious charitable institution" in the same manner (that manner being speed and comfort in the car, a comparative analysis.. but for religious vs nonreligious charitable institutions this would include a lot more elements.) as the "religious charitable institutions" then I would probably consider "religion" not being worth the inherent danger as long as the others weren't more inherently dangerous.

I am not even saying in this statement that religious charitable institutions ARE comparatively better than nonreligious.. only using this to represent that you would have to do this with all "peceived" benefits of religion itself.. at the end of which.. if you found that all its benefits were equally replicable by other things.. as well as the drawbacks, if any, of using multiple things as a replacement of these benefits that exist in one entity.. THEN you could be consistent in discounting religion but not discounting gasoline even though you agree they both have inherent dangers.

... deep breath-- the red bulls effecting me.

Quote:

It seems circular to me to use "unique benefit" in such a way... or at least expanding the word very broadly. For it seems that we are ignoring what constitutes a benefit.. I don't believe that you would consider a benefit to "use a gasoline powered car".. would you? But you would consider it a benefit that it gets you from point A to point B.

Quote:

Again this is silly. Of course its a benefit to use a gas powered car. I don't have any other kind of car and if you don't think using a car is a benefit then you must live someplace with public transportation. I do not.

This part of the conversation is becoming equally uninteresting. If you truly can see no difference between the benefit of driving a car as opposed to walking to a desired destination, and the benefit of having a religious charity as opposed to a secular one that fills the same need that is fine. Feel free to carry on in borderline absurdity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit–noun1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage: He explained the benefits of public ownership of the postal system.2. a payment or gift, as one made to help someone or given by a benefit society, insurance company, or public agency: The company offers its employees a pension plan, free health insurance, and other benefits.3. a theatrical performance or other public entertainment to raise money for a charitable organization or cause.4. Archaic. an act of kindness; good deed; benefaction.

LOOK how this word is used. "the benefits of public ownership".. "public ownership" is not a benefit.. it merely HAS benefits according to this sentence.

Your car is not a benefit (unless by using benefit you mean it was given to you by someone as payment or gift, see def. 2). Your car merely HAS benefits.

Yah.. didn't work for me either. For some reason it is adding some sort of number to the end of the link when you click it. Just copy and past if you're interested. Heh.. the name of the site is great. Galactic Guide.

As for the mistake.. understandable.. all that Monster energy drink and red bull. Has the potential for making some temporarily twitchy.. at least me- Heh.

I just hope all those links I used as reference for Vessel aren't broken as well. In which case.. Vessel, just click on the link and delete everything following the .html in the address bar.

For the last time.. not the "entity" but the assumptions you make surrounding that entity. A statement, in and of itself, cannot be irrational-- only when you start assuming that the person is making other assumptions does it become irrational (with what you assume he does).

Fine, so for me to believe in the entity as long as I don't think of anything about him that defies logic, is completely rational. I believe he is purple and eats stones and flies around stealing people's socks from their dryer. Nothing about that is illogical . So apparently my belief in him is completely rational. Correct or not?

I would put that entity on equal footing with a deity as far as probability for existence.

Quote:

Read all these definitions (or do not).. then tell me why you are saying my defintion is "strict" and how exactly you have inferred your definition from these written ones? (This is a prescriptive vs descriptive linguistic argument.. if you believe language to be descriptive.. then you can use the word any way you wish.. if it is prescriptive.. then you must infer, logically, from written definitions why you define an irrational person as one that: accepts a "highly improbably belief." Because.. I do not see how that defintion applies to that word.. only in the most liberal sense of using language at all.. like when people call Bush a fascist.)

Here is the definition by which the theist is irrational. You posted it yourself.

2. without or *deprived of normal mental clarity* or *sound judgment.*

It is not using sound judgement to believe in the existence of unevidenced things that are highly improbable. That is how theism can be labeled as irrational. Just the same, due to the fact that I do not exercise sound judgement by believing in the entity which I imagined, that belief would be irrationl.

Quote:

Your right.. they are "not the same" for they have been proven to be different by countless experiences and studies.

IF there were a non "religious charitable institution" that could do the same job as the "religious charitable institution" in the same manner (that manner being speed and comfort in the car, a comparative analysis.. but for religious vs nonreligious charitable institutions this would include a lot more elements.) as the "religious charitable institutions" then I would probably consider "religion" not being worth the inherent danger as long as the others weren't more inherently dangerous.

I am not even saying in this statement that religious charitable institutions ARE comparatively better than nonreligious.. only using this to represent that you would have to do this with all "peceived" benefits of religion itself.. at the end of which.. if you found that all its benefits were equally replicable by other things.. as well as the drawbacks, if any, of using multiple things as a replacement of these benefits that exist in one entity.. THEN you could be consistent in discounting religion but not discounting gasoline even though you agree they both have inherent dangers.

Yes, of course. That is exactly what I am saying. I believe that this is true of all benefits of religion or at least a number significant enough to discount them in relation to religions inherent danger. As a matter of fact, I believe that religion does not even offer enough benefit to make up for its inherent danger whether secular society can provide the same benefits or not. Why would you have thought I was referring to specific benefits provided by religion as opposed to all benefits?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

For the last time.. not the "entity" but the assumptions you make surrounding that entity. A statement, in and of itself, cannot be irrational-- only when you start assuming that the person is making other assumptions does it become irrational (with what you assume he does).

Quote:

Fine, so for me to believe in the entity as long as I don't think of anything about him that defies logic, is completely rational. I believe he is purple and eats stones and flies around stealing people's socks from their dryer. Nothing about that is illogical . So apparently my belief in him is completely rational. Correct or not?

I would put that entity on equal footing with a deity as far as probability for existence.

Probability. Yes. Equal footing. This is what I would consider outside the limits of human knowledge as we now believe those limits to be.

My limit of absolute knowledge, as it is now, resides at my scientific ability to discount every other naturally possible thing through experimentation.

However.. in the context of science.. everything that exists is natural, although we may lack the ability/language/experience to now know what or how to describe a particular thing of nature.

If God were ever seen. There would be scientific usable evidence for his existence.If he was purple and eats stones and flies around stealing peoples socks from the dryer. Then there would be scientific usable evidence that he is.... all that stuff.

For in both those cases.. they would become 'natural' in the scientific sense.. observable existence.

Science, in the definitive sense.. not a temporal comparison of what science now does or does not support.. dictates that both these be considered equally probable. Otherwise science would indeed have a goal (as you have stated before it does not).. that goal being that God does not exist.

Both rational statements. Yes. Unless you also assume at the same time as stating, and/or, believe this that:1.) God does not exist.2.) Or that God cannot be purple.3.) God cannot steal peoples socks.

For they would contradict your stated assumption.. and therefore.. in holding all these to be true.. and unless you could rationalize them.. then yes-- you would be in an irrational state.

Quote:

Read all these definitions (or do not).. then tell me why you are saying my defintion is "strict" and how exactly you have inferred your definition from these written ones? (This is a prescriptive vs descriptive linguistic argument.. if you believe language to be descriptive.. then you can use the word any way you wish.. if it is prescriptive.. then you must infer, logically, from written definitions why you define an irrational person as one that: accepts a "highly improbably belief." Because.. I do not see how that defintion applies to that word.. only in the most liberal sense of using language at all.. like when people call Bush a fascist.)

Quote:

Here is the definition by which the theist is irrational. You posted it yourself.

2. without or *deprived of normal mental clarity* or *sound judgment.*

It is not using sound judgement to believe in the existence of unevidenced things that are highly improbable. That is how theism can be labeled as irrational. Just the same, due to the fact that I do not exercise sound judgement by believing in the entity which I imagined, that belief would be irrationl.

You're placing your subjective idea of what is normal, sound, and deprived, is.

Or is there some objective standard by which you say this? Such as.. by dictorial (a word I made up.. meaning: refering to the dictionary) defintion.. one cannot believe in a unevidenced thing.

I do not except your "highly improbable" either.. for the reasons stated before this section.. that neither reason nor Science (definitively) do not make them improbable or probable.

Accepting a particular scientific theory might make it more or less probably however.

Quote:

Your right.. they are "not the same" for they have been proven to be different by countless experiences and studies.

IF there were a non "religious charitable institution" that could do the same job as the "religious charitable institution" in the same manner (that manner being speed and comfort in the car, a comparative analysis.. but for religious vs nonreligious charitable institutions this would include a lot more elements.) as the "religious charitable institutions" then I would probably consider "religion" not being worth the inherent danger as long as the others weren't more inherently dangerous.

I am not even saying in this statement that religious charitable institutions ARE comparatively better than nonreligious.. only using this to represent that you would have to do this with all "peceived" benefits of religion itself.. at the end of which.. if you found that all its benefits were equally replicable by other things.. as well as the drawbacks, if any, of using multiple things as a replacement of these benefits that exist in one entity.. THEN you could be consistent in discounting religion but not discounting gasoline even though you agree they both have inherent dangers.

Quote:

Yes, of course. That is exactly what I am saying. I believe that this is true of all benefits of religion or at least a number significant enough to discount them in relation to religions inherent danger. As a matter of fact, I believe that religion does not even offer enough benefit to make up for its inherent danger whether secular society can provide the same benefits or not. Why would you have thought I was referring to specific benefits provided by religion as opposed to all benefits?

That is not what you were saying. You may have meant to say that, but what you were saying was that.1.) Gasoline has a unique benefit.2.) A gasoline car has a unique benefit.3.) Unique benefits allow for you to accept the validity of keeping aforementioned thing even though they have inherent danger.

And I was contesting say: no.

Gasoline and Gasoline cars do not have a unique benefit. They have a comparatively better(for many many reasons) means by which to get a benefit within our current time.

And yes.. you could say that a "comparatively better means by which to get a benefit" is a benefit.. but not only that.. but you could say that it is a "unique benefit."

By this same reasoning.. if you accept the idea that religion is "comparatively better means by which to get a benefit", then this would be a "unique benefit" and therefore reason for you to ignore any inherent danger that Religion may have.

At this time you would have limited options to choose from, you could choose to do one of any number of things with regards to your earlier statement.

Quote:

Such a belief is without question the single best way to motivate a group of otherwise peaceful decent human beings into an irrational unaccepting oppressive mob. When one believes that they are doing what is desired by the only entity of any real importance or power in existence, the only source of life, good, love, and truth, then they are in a frame of mind that has the potential to be unrivaled in its ability to do harm. That alone, to me, outwieghs any consideration I should have for respecting the existence of this utterly unnecessary belief .

(this quote led to the idea of inherent danger, and under what situations you would accept something even though it has an inherent danger, at which point you said if it has a unique benefit... at which point we did all that other stuff.)1.) Take it back and be consistent.2.) Keep it and be contradictory.

In anycase.. it all comes down to the comparative value of the benefits that can come about through religion as opposed to those benefits as they would come about without the existence of religion.

So here are my list of perceived benefits.1.) Calming effect in times of crisis.2.) Instillation of morality.3.) Calming effects when anxious over the question of ones own existence.4.) The congregative affects it has with regards to creating charitable organizations.5.) The instillation of a inter-familiar unit therefore increasing tolerance within that unit. (mainly withiin that church itself).6.) And.. so on.

I'm not saying any of these cannot come about through non religious means.

You would just need to proceed to tell me under what instances they 'do' or your 'perceive them to be' so... and, argue how one representation is a "comparatively better means" by which to get that benefit.

I would contend that this is an impossible task.

Which is why I started contending in the first place your assumptions.. or at least the logical requirements of your assumptions when you make the statement that you did.

For the last time.. not the "entity" but the assumptions you make surrounding that entity. A statement, in and of itself, cannot be irrational-- only when you start assuming that the person is making other assumptions does it become irrational (with what you assume he does).

Fine, so for me to believe in the entity as long as I don't think of anything about him that defies logic, is completely rational. I believe he is purple and eats stones and flies around stealing people's socks from their dryer. Nothing about that is illogical . So apparently my belief in him is completely rational. Correct or not?

I would put that entity on equal footing with a deity as far as probability for existence.

Probability. Yes. Equal footing. This is what I would consider outside the limits of human knowledge as we now believe those limits to be.

Yes. But by this definition the belief in that being's existence is just as rational as belief in a non contradictory deity. So, you consider believing in all non contradictory things that are outside the limits of human knowledge to be rational if you use this definition. You believe that believing in anything that is non-contradictory is rational. So why should I bother to listen to you about anything you believe? If you consider yourself to be being rational by believing in anything non contradcictory that you can possibly imagine what possible knowledge could I aquire from you? That in and of itself is enough reason for me to want to discontinue discussion with you. Discussion is pointless when any non contradictory belief is considered rational. And my invisible friend that I am completely rational to believe in agrees.

All in all, I do not have the desire to go and look for the definitions of rational or irrational that differ from logical or illogical. Suffice to say, when I use the words in the way they are being used in the context of calling theism irrational people understand what I mean. That is, after all, the point of language.

Quote:

My limit of absolute knowledge, as it is now, resides at my scientific ability to discount every other naturally possible thing through experimentation.

Not even that. Because something is proven wrong through experimentation does not make it irrational by your definition. Because things can be proven wrong by experimentation does not make them illogical. The experiments could simply be wrong or you could be experiencing reality differently. You can actually have no irrational belief. Nothing you can think of can be irrational because you could simply be wrong in thinking it is irrational. In someone elses reality it could be completely rational. See how pointless and silly this conversation is?

Quote:

However.. in the context of science.. everything that exists is natural, although we may lack the ability/language/experience to now know what or how to describe a particular thing of nature.

Everything we know of is natural, yes. Everything that can be said to exist at this point in time is natural, yes. We know of nothing that exists supernaturally, but if we were to discover a different kind of existence that was supernatural, then that would not be natural.

Quote:

If God were ever seen. There would be scientific usable evidence for his existence.If he was purple and eats stones and flies around stealing peoples socks from the dryer. Then there would be scientific usable evidence that he is.... all that stuff.

For in both those cases.. they would become 'natural' in the scientific sense.. observable existence.

If that was what we saw it would not be a god. It would be a creature that does those things. And yes it would most likely be natural. If we however discovered something that existed in some other way than a natural way, it would be supernatural. If it was not comprised of a form of matter, or a form of energy, it would be supernatural.

Quote:

Science, in the definitive sense.. not a temporal comparison of what science now does or does not support.. dictates that both these be considered equally probable. Otherwise science would indeed have a goal (as you have stated before it does not).. that goal being that God does not exist.

No. Not at all. Science does not consider anything possible. It simply goes where it is led. It does not give these things equal probability, it gives both of them no consideration until it has reason to do otherwise. They are both non-existent, as far as science is concerned, until there is evidence to suggest they exist.

On an aside, The God concept has definitions. If science were to find that one of these definitions of god existed in some way we know as natural, or some newly discovered supernatural type of existence, then we would have a reaason to say a god exists. If what you are wanting to call god does not fit one of the definitions of god then it is not a god. Otherwise, I could call a banana god and, boom!, I would be able to say god exists. If you want to throw out the definitions of a god then to say a god exists says nothing. As a matter of fact, I think it would be best, if we are to continue discussing this, to know what type of god you think to exist. Otherwise, for all I know your god could be the guy on the corner in the tinfoil hat. You say you are a theist. What sort of god belief do you have?

Quote:

Both rational statements. Yes. Unless you also assume at the same time as stating, and/or, believe this that:1.) God does not exist.2.) Or that God cannot be purple.3.) God cannot steal peoples socks.

For they would contradict your stated assumption.. and therefore.. in holding all these to be true.. and unless you could rationalize them.. then yes-- you would be in an irrational state.

As I have said this definition of irrational and rational is pointless to consider. It leads to the ridiculousness above if we are to say such things are rational.

Rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

Here is the definition by which the theist is irrational. You posted it yourself.

2. without or *deprived of normal mental clarity* or *sound judgment.*

It is not using sound judgement to believe in the existence of unevidenced things that are highly improbable. That is how theism can be labeled as irrational. Just the same, due to the fact that I do not exercise sound judgement by believing in the entity which I imagined, that belief would be irrationl.

You're placing your subjective idea of what is normal, sound, and deprived, is.

Or is there some objective standard by which you say this? Such as.. by dictorial (a word I made up.. meaning: refering to the dictionary) defintion.. one cannot believe in a unevidenced thing.

I do not except your "highly improbable" either.. for the reasons stated before this section.. that neither reason nor Science (definitively) do not make them improbable or probable.

Accepting a particular scientific theory might make it more or less probably however.

Well, to use that definition you would have to use a relative standard would you not? yet there the definition is as you requested. Actually, by the fact that nothing is irrational unless its self contradictory we pretty much have to define everything relatively and consider all concepts relative. In truth, I only used that definition because I was too lazy and disinterested to put forth the effort to find a better definition. What I say above is more accurately my position.

Quote:

That is not what you were saying. You may have meant to say that, but what you were saying was that.1.) Gasoline has a unique benefit.2.) A gasoline car has a unique benefit.3.) Unique benefits allow for you to accept the validity of keeping aforementioned thing even though they have inherent danger.

And I was contesting say: no.

Yes I never changed that position.

Quote:

Gasoline and Gasoline cars do not have a unique benefit. They have a comparatively better(for many many reasons) means by which to get a benefit within our current time.

Yes which is a unique benefit. By being comparatively better it is a unique benefit.

Quote:

And yes.. you could say that a "comparatively better means by which to get a benefit" is a benefit.. but not only that.. but you could say that it is a "unique benefit."

As a matter of fact, I did say that.

Quote:

By this same reasoning.. if you accept the idea that religion is "comparatively better means by which to get a benefit", then this would be a "unique benefit" and therefore reason for you to ignore any inherent danger that Religion may have.

Now you seem to be understanding what I was saying.

Quote:

At this time you would have limited options to choose from, you could choose to do one of any number of things with regards to your earlier statement.

That is usually what happens. One can do one or a number of things. Seldom is it the case that one can do no things with regards to a statement.

Quote:

(this quote led to the idea of inherent danger, and under what situations you would accept something even though it has an inherent danger, at which point you said if it has a unique benefit... at which point we did all that other stuff.)1.) Take it back and be consistent.2.) Keep it and be contradictory.

If it has a unique benefit that outweighs the danger, of course. That didn't need to be said unless you are simply being obstinate. Jeez sometimes conversing with you is more of a burden that it is worth. You are confusing in thew way tyou discuss things as you don't seem to understand what is being said when most others I have conversed with would. In a discussion dealing with inherent danger why would I mean that if it has a unique benefit it would be acceptable regardless of inherent danger? Jeez H. Christ, did that really need to be tacked on to the end for you to understand the point?

Quote:

In anycase. it all comes down to the comparative value of the benefits that can come about through religion as opposed to those benefits as they would come about without the existence of religion.

Bingo. Crap that shouldn't have been near that difficult. I have noticed you have a tendendy to be hgard of understanding to the point of completely frustrating those you converse with in nearly every thread in which you are involved. Do you think that happens to be a problem with everyoine you discuss with or do you think perhaps you might need to look at yourself to see what this problem seems to arise?

Quote:

So here are my list of perceived benefits.1.) Calming effect in times of crisis.

I don't see that religion does this. Even if it does it does not in any way which is irreplacable. I am an atheist and I can be calm in times of crisis.

Quote:

2.) Instillation of morality.

Religion definitely doesn't do this. We use morality to judge religion so how can religion instill morality?

Quote:

3.) Calming effects when anxious over the question of ones own existence.

Whoever needs calming over questions of their own existence needs thorazine, not religion.

Quote:

4.) The congregative affects it has with regards to creating charitable organizations.

There are secular charitable organiztions that function perfectly well.

Quote:

5.) The instillation of a inter-familiar unit therefore increasing tolerance within that unit. (mainly withiin that church itself).

This is a danger not a benefit. Tolerance within the family unit is the same mentality that leads to intolerance with non family members.

Quote:

6.) And.. so on.

Until I know what so on is it is hard to reply.

Quote:

I'm not saying any of these cannot come about through non religious means.

Nor that they can't come about equally if not better through non-religious means.

Quote:

You would just need to proceed to tell me under what instances they 'do' or your 'perceive them to be' so... and, argue how one representation is a "comparatively better means" by which to get that benefit.

Why would I need to do that? I don't need you to agree with me for me to feel that religion is inherently more dangerous than beneficial. You seem to think that if you don't agree with something it is necessarilly untrue. Are you god? You are aren't you you sly old fox. Ha. Fooled me. And me all not believing in you and stuff.

Quote:

I would contend that this is an impossible task.

I'm unsure why I am supposed to care whether you think it possible or not.

Quote:

Which is why I started contending in the first place your assumptions.. or at least the logical requirements of your assumptions when you make the statement that you did.

There are no logical requirements. It is not a logical argument. It is definitely in no way illogical to contend that religion is far more dangerous than beneficial. Show me how such a statement is illogical.

The statement was a statement about what I think of religion. It is times like this that I wonder why I bother conversing with you.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

I will make things smaller-- it seems to be working in another thread, so I will try it here.

Quote:

Yes. But by this definition the belief in that being's existence is just as rational as belief in a non contradictory deity.

I did mention one self-evident assumption: I think therefore I am. To assume otherwise would be inherently irrational.

Quote:

So, you consider believing in all non contradictory things that are outside the limits of human knowledge to be rational if you use this definition. You believe that believing in anything that is non-contradictory is rational. So why should I bother to listen to you about anything you believe?

Not all. Just one. I admit it's a choice, but a rational one.

As for why you should bother listening to me about anything I believe: You needn't. Nor SHOULD you. You choose too or you do not. That is all.

Quote:

If you consider yourself to be being rational by believing in anything non contradcictory that you can possibly imagine what possible knowledge could I aquire from you?

Nothing.. other than finally understanding the word irrational in the literal and definitively correct sense.

Quote:

That in and of itself is enough reason for me to want to discontinue discussion with you. Discussion is pointless when any non contradictory belief is considered rational. And my invisible friend that I am completely rational to believe in agrees.

Your belief in an imaginary friend might be rational or irrational (I haven't asked you what other assumptions you are making on the belief);

YET, whether or not it is irrational or rational has no bearing on whether to it is, in actuality, true; AND FURTHERMORE, what affects believing in your imaginary friend has on your life, if any.

Quote:

All in all, I do not have the desire to go and look for the definitions of rational or irrational that differ from logical or illogical. Suffice to say, when I use the words in the way they are being used in the context of calling theism irrational people understand what I mean. That is, after all, the point of language.

The point of language is to communicate an idea-- yes.

YET, just because I say that "encontrar" means "to find" doesn't mean that "encontrar" means "to find;" FURTHERMORE, the fact that other people accept your understanding of a word does not mean you are definitively correct.

Quote:

My limit of absolute knowledge, as it is now, resides at my scientific ability to discount every other naturally possible thing through experimentation.

Quote:

Not even that. Because something is proven wrong through experimentation does not make it irrational by your definition. Because things can be proven wrong by experimentation does not make them illogical. The experiments could simply be wrong or you could be experiencing reality differently. You can actually have no irrational belief. Nothing you can think of can be irrational because you could simply be wrong in thinking it is irrational. In someone elses reality it could be completely rational. See how pointless and silly this conversation is?

INCORRECT. Most of this conversation has been about logic and rationality. This previous statement was an assumption-- a belief I hold that has particular affects and implications.

Quote:

If that was what we saw it would not be a god. It would be a creature that does those things. And yes it would most likely be natural. If we however discovered something that existed in some other way than a natural way, it would be supernatural. If it was not comprised of a form of matter, or a form of energy, it would be supernatural.

Are you qualifying nature by saying things of "matter or energy" because thats what nature is? Or because that's what science has defined it as because it has scene no reason for the existence of anything else?

If science, as it is now, SAW God, I would contend they would probably then have reason to think something besides matter or energy exists. (Assuming of course God is not made up of matter or energy).

They would treat him/her/it as any other observable thing as a 'phenomena' in need of explanation.

Quote:

Science, in the definitive sense.. not a temporal comparison of what science now does or does not support.. dictates that both these be considered equally probable. Otherwise science would indeed have a goal (as you have stated before it does not).. that goal being that God does not exist.

Quote:

No. Not at all. Science does not consider anything possible. It simply goes where it is led. It does not give these things equal probability, it gives both of them no consideration until it has reason to do otherwise. They are both non-existent, as far as science is concerned, until there is evidence to suggest they exist.

Granted. I'll accept this and correct whenever I make statements on science in the future. But.. this understanding of science then applies to the previous statement.

Quote:

On an aside, The God concept has definitions. If science were to find that one of these definitions of god existed in some way we know as natural, or some newly discovered supernatural type of existence, then we would have a reaason to say a god exists. If what you are wanting to call god does not fit one of the definitions of god then it is not a god. Otherwise, I could call a banana god and, boom!, I would be able to say god exists. If you want to throw out the definitions of a god then to say a god exists says nothing. As a matter of fact, I think it would be best, if we are to continue discussing this, to know what type of god you think to exist. Otherwise, for all I know your god could be the guy on the corner in the tinfoil hat. You say you are a theist. What sort of god belief do you have?

It fits the definition in that God is the one supreme being and creator of the universe.

That is one definition of God.

To say that the banana is god would be to 1.) call the banana a being, 2.) that it is the creator of the universe.

Nothing in the definition of the word God states that he must be supernatural. And even if it did, the definition of supernatural pertains to the perception of existence outside of natural law; not that it is, in fact, outside of natural law.

As for this discussion turning to what god belief I have, I can only say: Thankyou.

You are the first person to do this.

Everyone else either doesn't care to know-- or assumes me to be one of their constructs of a theist.

Here are my assumptions I live by (not that they are necessarily true, only assumptions).1.) I think therefore I am.2.) I believe you are, therefore you are.3.) I believe that we live in a natural world.4.) I believe that science is a study of the natural world as it now perceives it to be.5.) I believe that discussions can be good.6.) I believe that God has always existed.7.) I believe that God created the universe.8.) I believe in the God of the Bible.9.) I believe the bible to not necessarily be infallible, YET, accurate in those ideas of relation to salvation.10.) I believe salvation to be the gift of the eternal life over eternal death (not eternal torture/torment).11.) I believe Hell to be the separation, in part or whole, between something and God.12.) I believe that nothing can exist completely apart from God.13.) I don't believe one must know the Christian God, in the literal sense of being a member of his church or professing yourself to be a christian, to be saved.14.) I do believe that no one can be saved from eternal death without God. (a necessary condition of an earlier assumption)15.) I believe that the idea between an eternal universe and an eternal God are equally probably.16.) I believe my faith to be a choice.17.) I believe beliefs to have affects on your life.18.) I believe this list is getting to long.. but I can go on for awhile if you wish.

2. without or *deprived of normal mental clarity* or *sound judgment.*

Quote:

It is not using sound judgement to believe in the existence of unevidenced things that are highly improbable. That is how theism can be labeled as irrational. Just the same, due to the fact that I do not exercise sound judgement by believing in the entity which I imagined, that belief would be irrationl.

..

Nowhere in the dictionary will you find "sound judgement" defined-- you might find papers on the subject.

But to automatically assume that this is what sound judgment is, it is premature.

As for "highly improbable".. under what sphere of reasoning? Scientific reasoning? Philosophical reasoning? Reasoning in general?

Quote:

Well, to use that definition you would have to use a relative standard would you not?

I did, however, I defined that relative standard as well as implied that it was relative through my explanation.

RSS has not done so, and many others do not do so, with their use of the word irrational.

Quote:

Yet there the definition is as you requested. Actually, by the fact that nothing is irrational unless its self contradictory we pretty much have to define everything relatively and consider all concepts relative. In truth, I only used that definition because I was too lazy and disinterested to put forth the effort to find a better definition. What I say above is more accurately my position.

Alright.

Quote:

Now you seem to be understanding what I was saying.

Good stuff. So either you were not perfectly clear or I am just slow at picking clear things up.

I would state the former to be more probable since I don't believe that you believe yourself to be "perfectly" clear.

Quote:

At this time you would have limited options to choose from, you could choose to do one of any number of things with regards to your earlier statement.

Quote:

That is usually what happens. One can do one or a number of things. Seldom is it the case that one can do no things with regards to a statement.

Hah. True.

Quote:

If it has a unique benefit that outweighs the danger, of course. That didn't need to be said unless you are simply being obstinate. Jeez sometimes conversing with you is more of a burden that it is worth.

Sorry.

Quote:

You are confusing in thew way tyou discuss things as you don't seem to understand what is being said when most others I have conversed with would.

Do you mean to contend that since others accept assumptions readily, or don't clearly define those assumption, that they are somehow more valid, significant, etc?

I like to be clear on assumptions-- yes.

This is hard to do.

Quote:

In a discussion dealing with inherent danger why would I mean that if it has a unique benefit it would be acceptable regardless of inherent danger? Jeez H. Christ, did that really need to be tacked on to the end for you to understand the point?

Heh.. didn't mean to leave that door open.

Quote:

In anycase. it all comes down to the comparative value of the benefits that can come about through religion as opposed to those benefits as they would come about without the existence of religion.

Quote:

Bingo. Crap that shouldn't have been near that difficult. I have noticed you have a tendendy to be hgard of understanding to the point of completely frustrating those you converse with in nearly every thread in which you are involved.

You're right. Most people would just rather have me accept what they accept as definitive and/or truth in the first place. But in that case.. whats the point of the debate in the first place

Quote:

Do you think that happens to be a problem with everyoine you discuss with or do you think perhaps you might need to look at yourself to see what this problem seems to arise?

Not everyone. Just here. Because.. well.. I would guess that many of the people here have very different assumptions then I.

Quote:

So here are my list of perceived benefits.1.) Calming effect in times of crisis.

Quote:

I don't see that religion does this. Even if it does it does not in any way which is irreplacable. I am an atheist and I can be calm in times of crisis.

Atheism may very well calm you in times of crisis; EVEN AS, I'm sure you would agree, that theism may very well calm me during times of crisis.

The question is: Which one calms more efficiently or in a "compartively better" manner?

IMPOSSIBLE! I would contend.

This same concepts apply to all of your response.

I was not saying that any of these benefits were not found in any other place. I was contending the impossibility of comparing their efficacy.

Quote:

You would just need to proceed to tell me under what instances they 'do' or your 'perceive them to be' so... and, argue how one representation is a "comparatively better means" by which to get that benefit.

Quote:

Why would I need to do that?

By "that" you are referring to my earlier statement that you must have considered all possible benefits of religion and received ample evidence to believe they are not comparatively better than others; OTHERWISE, you'd be acting prematurely with all your actions that are aimed and doing away with it.

Why?

Because of your earlier statements, coupled with a later assumptions, required it mainly this.

Statement: 1

Me wrote:

But then... I don't believe you agree with these assumptions, which I'm assuming are necessary for your contention.1.) If something has an inherent danger, inherent meaning always-possibility of harm, then it should be done away with. And if you do then..Gasoline has the inherent danger of exploding. Antibiotics have the inherent danger of creating more potent bacteria.

2

You wrote:

No. These have benefits. There are no such benefits with theism.

3

Quote:

3.) Unique benefits allow for you to accept the validity of keeping aforementioned thing even though they have inherent danger.Yes I never changed that position.

4

Quote:

Yes which is a unique benefit. By being comparatively better it is a unique benefit.

1 and 2.) My analogy was not valid because Gasoline has a benefit.3.) You further clarify that it must be a unique benefit.4.) You further clarify that a "comparatively better" means by which to do something is a "unique benefit."

So. I ask again. How can you not be prematurely stating that my analogy is not valid if you have not compared all perceived benefits of religion and their perceived counterparts within a non-religion.

You can just say. "I assume their to be none."

Which is fine.

I would just say that it's a premature assumption.. and its "Begging the Question" because it requires me to accept what is one important point of debate in the argument, in order to move on to others.

Quote:

I don't need you to agree with me for me to feel that religion is inherently more dangerous than beneficial. You seem to think that if you don't agree with something it is necessarilly untrue. Are you god? You are aren't you you sly old fox. Ha. Fooled me. And me all not believing in you and stuff.

Haha. I will strike you down within my energy bolt.

(Um.. not something I actually believe God does or does not do. Heh, just being humorous-- but not me stating that I was being humorous has ruined it altogether.)

Quote:

The statement was a statement about what I think of religion. It is times like this that I wonder why I bother conversing with you.

I don't know why you do either.

I know why I keep conversing. One reason is: To understand how other people think.

YET, just because I say that "encontrar" means "to find" doesn't mean that "encontrar" means "to find;" FURTHERMORE, the fact that other people accept your understanding of a word does not mean you are definitively correct.

Being definitively correct is not important in this matter (especially not since it is impossible devoid of having the ability to ascertain anything more than subjective truths). As long as those I converse with understand encontrar to mean 'to find' then it does indeed mean 'to find'. Encontrar has no inherent meaning only a meaning ascribed to it by those who use and understand it.

Quote:

INCORRECT. Most of this conversation has been about logic and rationality. This previous statement was an assumption-- a belief I hold that has particular affects and implications.

Incorrect it has been about rationality/logic as you use them interchangably.

Quote:

Are you qualifying nature by saying things of "matter or energy" because thats what nature is? Or because that's what science has defined it as because it has scene no reason for the existence of anything else?

That would be a decision that would have to be answered upon the discovery of something else; whether it was a new form of existence that was supernatural, or simply another form of matter or energy, or a completely new type of natral existence. Science has had to answer these questions with dark matter and dark energy. So far it seems all things in existence have been classified as natural.

Quote:

If science, as it is now, SAW God, I would contend they would probably then have reason to think something besides matter or energy exists. (Assuming of course God is not made up of matter or energy).

Probably so. So far that has not been the case so for me to hold a belief such a thing exists seems a ridiculous,unnecessary, and uhm, not exactly rational.

Quote:

They would treat him/her/it as any other observable thing as a 'phenomena' in need of explanation.

Possibly. But since he supposedly created the universe I am sure he could fill them in.

Quote:

To say that the banana is god would be to 1.) call the banana a being, 2.) that it is the creator of the universe.

That would not be irrational by the definition we have settled on. There is nothing illogical in the banana being a being and creating the universe.

Rhad wrote:

Here are my assumptions I live by (not that they are necessarily true, only assumptions).1.) I think therefore I am.2.) I believe you are, therefore you are.3.) I believe that we live in a natural world.4.) I believe that science is a study of the natural world as it now perceives it to be.5.) I believe that discussions can be good.6.) I believe that God has always existed.7.) I believe that God created the universe.8.) I believe in the God of the Bible.9.) I believe the bible to not necessarily be infallible, YET, accurate in those ideas of relation to salvation.10.) I believe salvation to be the gift of the eternal life over eternal death (not eternal torture/torment).11.) I believe Hell to be the separation, in part or whole, between something and God.12.) I believe that nothing can exist completely apart from God.13.) I don't believe one must know the Christian God, in the literal sense of being a member of his church or professing yourself to be a christian, to be saved.14.) I do believe that no one can be saved from eternal death without God. (a necessary condition of an earlier assumption)15.) I believe that the idea between an eternal universe and an eternal God are equally probably.16.) I believe my faith to be a choice.17.) I believe beliefs to have affects on your life.18.) I believe this list is getting to long.. but I can go on for awhile if you wish.

Well, the god of the bible is self contradictory so why all the battling over the definition of irrational? The god of the bible is irrational even by the definition you support.

Rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

It is not using sound judgement to believe in the existence of unevidenced things that are highly improbable. That is how theism can be labeled as irrational. Just the same, due to the fact that I do not exercise sound judgement by believing in the entity which I imagined, that belief would be irrationl.

..

Nowhere in the dictionary will you find "sound judgement" defined-- you might find papers on the subject.

But to automatically assume that this is what sound judgment is, it is premature.

Its not at all premature. That is what I was taking sound judgement to mean. if you don't agree well, that is hardly something I can control. I could take a poll to find the most accepted definition, but I really don't have the time.

Quote:

As for "highly improbable".. under what sphere of reasoning? Scientific reasoning? Philosophical reasoning? Reasoning in general?

Why sphere of reasoning? What does sphere mean in this context? Is there really a difference between reasonings? Can they be classified in such a manner or isn't that just a subjective classification? What makes one reasoning better or more reliable than another reasoning? Isn't this just subjective as well? Is reasoning even reasonable? What definition of reasonable shall we use?

Rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

Well, to use that definition you would have to use a relative standard would you not?

I did, however, I defined that relative standard as well as implied that it was relative through my explanation.

RSS has not done so, and many others do not do so, with their use of the word irrational.

RRS may use a different definition. You might want to ask them what definition they use.

rhad wrote:

vessel wrote:

Now you seem to be understanding what I was saying.

Good stuff. So either you were not perfectly clear or I am just slow at picking clear things up.

I would state the former to be more probable since I don't believe that you believe yourself to be "perfectly" clear.

Since for one to be perfect in any fashion is a concept with no practical application to be perfectly clear would be impossible, but I normally get by.

Rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

Bingo. Crap that shouldn't have been near that difficult. I have noticed you have a tendendy to be hgard of understanding to the point of completely frustrating those you converse with in nearly every thread in which you are involved.

You're right. Most people would just rather have me accept what they accept as definitive and/or truth in the first place. But in that case.. whats the point of the debate in the first place

When you have to question the existence of reality, the truth of reason, or the perfected definition of rationality in every discussion, you will find meaningful debate nearly impossible.

Rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

Do you think that happens to be a problem with everyoine you discuss with or do you think perhaps you might need to look at yourself to see what this problem seems to arise?

Not everyone. Just here. Because.. well.. I would guess that many of the people here have very different assumptions then I.

Well, I would point out that many here have had these conversations with many theists and not had these communication problems. I am not saying anything is wrong with the way you discuss things if that is the way in which you desire to discuss. I will however say that when you find people who are well educated and have had these type of conversations with many others before, without the communication problems, you may want to consider the common factor of a set of conversations where there seem to be communication problems.

Quote:

IMPOSSIBLE! I would contend.

This same concepts apply to all of your response.

I was not saying that any of these benefits were not found in any other place. I was contending the impossibility of comparing their efficacy.

I'm sure you would contend that such is impossible. But unless you could convince me so through reasonable discourse, the fact that you consider it impossible has no effect on what I see as religion's inherent danger as compared to its worth.

Quote:

You would just need to proceed to tell me under what instances they 'do' or your 'perceive them to be' so... and, argue how one representation is a "comparatively better means" by which to get that benefit.

Vessel wrote:

Why would I need to do that?

By "that" you are referring to my earlier statement that you must have considered all possible benefits of religion and received ample evidence to believe they are not comparatively better than others; OTHERWISE, you'd be acting prematurely with all your actions that are aimed and doing away with it.

No, by 'that' I am referring to the statement just above where I ask the question. That is the way these quote things normally work. Why would I use 'that' and be referring to an earlier statement? To do such a thing would be ridiculously confusing.

I was asking why I would need to proceed to tell you under what instances they 'do' or I 'perceive them to be' so... and, argue how one representation is a "comparatively better means" by which to get that benefit. Such a thing might be necessary for you to be convinced that religion's inherent danger outweighs its worth, but it is in no way necessary for me to think religion's inherent danger outwieghs its worth. I am satisfied that such is the case as I have looked to what religion can acccomplish what can be accomplished without religion and what dangers are inherent to religious thought. I never claimed I could convince you of such, or that I was going to try.

Quote:

Atheism may very well calm you in times of crisis; EVEN AS, I'm sure you would agree, that theism may very well calm me during times of crisis.

I did not say atheism calms me in times of crisis. Atheism is the lack of a god belief. It can not calm one. It can do nothing as it is not actually a thing. atheists can do things, atheism can not.

I said I am an atheist and I am calm in times of crisis. Atheism, itself, is not the calmer.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

Being definitively correct is not important in this matter (especially not since it is impossible devoid of having the ability to ascertain anything more than subjective truths).

Being definitively correct is not important in this matter? If this be the case.. then yes-- then it this conversation can not go on.

I'm interpreting the conversation in a definitively correct way. It's prescription vs descriptive. If I believe language to be prescriptive.. and you believe it to be descriptive; furthermore, that you don't need to use you words by their (dictionarially ) OBJECTIVE definition. Then use.. you could subjectively use the word however you want in the debate-- and deem me wrong because I don't accept your subjective definitions as objective ones.

FURTHERMORE, the fact that 'many' other people that you've talked with hold these same subjective definitions.. does not have any more bearing on my previous point.

Quote:

As long as those I converse with understand encontrar to mean 'to find' then it does indeed mean 'to find'. Encontrar has no inherent meaning only a meaning ascribed to it by those who use and understand it.

True. This would be 'descriptive.' If we both accept it to mean the same thing.. then our subjective meanings would be in agreement and we could use it with little confusion.

Quote:

Incorrect it has been about rationality/logic as you use them interchangably.

Heh. This has been a side note. But yah-- we have been talking about it for awhile.

Quote:

If science, as it is now, SAW God, I would contend they would probably then have reason to think something besides matter or energy exists. (Assuming of course God is not made up of matter or energy).

Quote:

Probably so. So far that has not been the case so for me to hold a belief such a thing exists seems a ridiculous,unnecessary, and uhm, not exactly rational.

I understand what you mean by rational (within the context of the statement it would seem to me to include anything that seems a ridiculous and unnecessary belief). That's fine. You can use it how you wish. As I stated above.

But, once again... DEFINITIVELY.rational=exercising reasonreason=cause or basis for a belief, action, etc. (or) the mental powers concerned with making judgments, inferences.

The fact that you may feel the belief in God to "seem ridiculous" and "unnecessary" does not change the fact that from an objective standpoint, the belief may be exercising reason (on a basis, or, by using the mental powers concerned with judgements, inferences, deductions from assumptions.).

Quote:

They would treat him/her/it as any other observable thing as a 'phenomena' in need of explanation.

Quote:

Possibly. But since he supposedly created the universe I am sure he could fill them in.

Heh.

Quote:

Well, the god of the bible is self contradictory so why all the battling over the definition of irrational? The god of the bible is irrational even by the definition you support.

"God of the bible is self contradictory" or do you mean to say "The Bible is self contradictory"?

Either way.. it's all a bit funny to have me conceed that it is just because you assume it to be.

Show me your best example. I will attempt to reconcile it. If I can't. I will throw away belief. Or accept being deemed irrational.

Quote:

Its not at all premature. That is what I was taking sound judgement to mean. if you don't agree well, that is hardly something I can control. I could take a poll to find the most accepted definition, but I really don't have the time.

The dictionary is the largest poll you have as to the commonly accepted meaning of words.

IF you did a poll for this particular phrase I still wouldn't accept it as so.. because sound and judgment have definitively meanings-- and many people might lack the ability to put 1 and 1 together to make 2.

Quote:

Why sphere of reasoning? What does sphere mean in this context? Is there really a difference between reasonings?

Scientific reasoning requires that you remain within natural law. Philosphical reasoning does not.

Quote:

What makes one reasoning better or more reliable than another reasoning?

This is a point I'm trying to make.

Quote:

What definition of reasonable shall we use?

The very definition within reasonable itself.

Not.. a subjective one.

Quote:

RRS may use a different definition. You might want to ask them what definition they use.

I will. For the meaning time.. I choose to do it through the boards to get other peoples subjective definition of irrational.

Quote:

You're right. Most people would just rather have me accept what they accept as definitive and/or truth in the first place. But in that case.. whats the point of the debate in the first place

When you have to question the existence of reality, the truth of reason, or the perfected definition of rationality in every discussion, you will find meaningful debate nearly impossible.

True. Which is why I choose to accept those assumptions in order to logically have the debate in the first place. I do not however choose to accept that rational can only mean the believe only those things to be real which have a scientific basis.

Quote:

Well, I would point out that many here have had these conversations with many theists and not had these communication problems. I am not saying anything is wrong with the way you discuss things if that is the way in which you desire to discuss. I will however say that when you find people who are well educated and have had these type of conversations with many others before, without the communication problems, you may want to consider the common factor of a set of conversations where there seem to be communication problems.

And they shoot themselves in the foot because of it.

Quote:

I'm sure you would contend that such is impossible. But unless you could convince me so through reasonable discourse, the fact that you consider it impossible has no effect on what I see as religion's inherent danger as compared to its worth.

I implied through discourse that it is impossible. To convince you would require 'sufficient evidence' on my part. I don't know what you require.. nor that I may be able to do it.

Quote:

You would just need to proceed to tell me under what instances they 'do' or your 'perceive them to be' so... and, argue how one representation is a "comparatively better means" by which to get that benefit.

Vessel wrote:

Why would I need to do that?

By "that" you are referring to my earlier statement that you must have considered all possible benefits of religion and received ample evidence to believe they are not comparatively better than others; OTHERWISE, you'd be acting prematurely with all your actions that are aimed and doing away with it.

Quote:

No, by 'that' I am referring to the statement just above where I ask the question. That is the way these quote things normally work. Why would I use 'that' and be referring to an earlier statement? To do such a thing would be ridiculously confusing.

That question was my question. My question was what you referring to with the word 'that.' My quesiton was based off your earlier statements.

Quote:

I said I am an atheist and I am calm in times of crisis. Atheism, itself, is not the calmer.

Understood. Still.. doesn't apply to the earlier responses. On what grounds do you say that religion does not have a "compartively better means" by which to do something other than by your subjective feelings.

Because I'm pretty sure science would have a hard time giving conclusive evidence that one is "compartively better means" to make one calmer, or to pass on a moral concept, etc.

like pretty much all of the threads you are involved in, this entire conversation has become a mess of silly semantics and defintion games and questions of the ability to trust our own senses to the point that it is impossible to keep up with, or even care to try to keep up with. Enough is enough with the silliness. We will investigate the rationality of your belief by the definitions below.

It is irrational to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Show me evidence of your god and show me you are not irrational. Anyone who says that believing in something for which there is no evidence is not (from definitions below) lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence is lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence and needs to be locked in a home before they harm themself trying to get away from the giant purple dinosaur trying to eat their brain. So enough with the silliness. Out with evidence.

On another front, aside from evidence, give me the characteristics of the god in which you believe and we will see about the logical possibility of its existence.

It is pointless to discuss whether a belief in an undefined god is logical or illogical as an undefined god is not a god anyone holds a belief in. You have chosen to believe in the god of the bible. So define the characteristics of the god of the bible and let's try to square them with logic.

These are sufficient definitions for our purposes.

irrational: (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b: not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears> cGreek & Latin prosody (1) of a syllable: having a quantity other than that required by the meter (2) of a foot: containing such a syllable d (1) : being an irrational number <an irrational root of an equation> (2) : having a numerical value that is an irrational number <a length that is irrational>

reason: 1 a: a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b: a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially: something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITYb: the sum of the intellectual powers

And, by the way, you keep referring to this as a debate. It is not a debate. It is a conversation. There are rules and structure for debating and this in no way, shape, or form could be considered a debate.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

like pretty much all of the threads you are involved in, this entire conversation has become a mess of silly semantics and defintion games and questions of the ability to trust our own senses to the point that it is impossible to keep up with, or even care to try to keep up with. Enough is enough with the silliness. We will investigate the rationality of your belief by the definitions below.

It is irrational to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Show me evidence of your god and show me you are not irrational. Anyone who says that believing in something for which there is no evidence is not (from definitions below) lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence is lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence and needs to be locked in a home before they harm themself trying to get away from the giant purple dinosaur trying to eat their brain. So enough with the silliness. Out with evidence.

On another front, aside from evidence, give me the characteristics of the god in which you believe and we will see about the logical possibility of its existence.

It is pointless to discuss whether a belief in an undefined god is logical or illogical as an undefined god is not a god anyone holds a belief in. You have chosen to believe in the god of the bible. So define the characteristics of the god of the bible and let's try to square them with logic.

These are sufficient definitions for our purposes.

irrational: (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b: not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears> cGreek & Latin prosody (1) of a syllable: having a quantity other than that required by the meter (2) of a foot: containing such a syllable d (1) : being an irrational number <an irrational root of an equation> (2) : having a numerical value that is an irrational number <a length that is irrational>

reason: 1 a: a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b: a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially: something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITYb: the sum of the intellectual powers

And, by the way, you keep referring to this as a debate. It is not a debate. It is a conversation. There are rules and structure for debating and this in no way, shape, or form could be considered a debate.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

like pretty much all of the threads you are involved in, this entire conversation has become a mess of silly semantics and defintion games and questions of the ability to trust our own senses to the point that it is impossible to keep up with, or even care to try to keep up with. Enough is enough with the silliness.

I'm not trying to make you question your own senses. Just realize that it is something you choose to believe. It is a belief based off reasoning. Mainly, that what you feel and perceive is real.

Notice.. not making you question (in the sense, doubt, and somehow not beleive anything)-- just make a point.

Quote:

We will investigate the rationality of your belief by the definitions below.

Fine.

Quote:

It is irrational to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Show me evidence of your god and show me you are not irrational.

The universe exists is my sufficient condition. The bible is my evidence that God is a necessary condition for the universe to exist.

Or did you mean scientific evidence?

People around here forget to put adjectives in front of nouns it seems...

Because neither evidence or reason are functions of science, but rather the other way around.

I have no problems with you telling me that I am "irrational from a scientific point of view" since I have not observed a falsifiable existence.

Quote:

Out with evidence.

Scientific evidence? Or Biblical?

Quote:

On another front, aside from evidence, give me the characteristics of the god in which you believe and we will see about the logical possibility of its existence.

Some guy is singing Foo Fighters in the room. I'm having trouble concentrating.

Accept my point above. Or clarify your question. And I will continue with the rest of this post.

I'm not trying to make you question your own senses. Just realize that it is something you choose to believe. It is a choice based of reasoning. Mainly, that what you feel and perceive is real.

Notice.. not making you question (in the sense, doubt, and somehow not beleive anything)-- just make a point.

You could not make me question my own senses and whether or not you are trying to is irrelevant. To trust one's senses is not something one chooses to believe as I have explained to you, and you have failed to understand. It is a necessity of one's ability to function. That is not a choice. Reason is the tool by which I translate all sensory input. I do not choose to be a human who reasons. It is simply the tool by which a human experiences its existence. To choose not to trust it would be impossible. That you can not seem to understand this makes me question your reasoning ability.

rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

It is irrational to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Show me evidence of your god and show me you are not irrational.

The universe exists is my sufficient condition. The bible is my evidence that God is a necessary condition for the universe to exist.

The bible is not evidence of a god being a necessary condition for the universe to exist. The bible is a book. Books are only evidence for authors, printers, paper, language, etc.. Do you mean something written in the bible is evidence? Explain why you think this to be evidence and we can look into it. The bible says a lot of things. Do you mean because the bible says a dude named Jesus was cruxified you think god exists as a necessary condition for the existence of the universe? You are going to have to be more specific.

Quote:

Or did you mean scientific evidence?

All evidence is scientific in its nature.

Quote:

People around here forget to put adjectives in front of nouns it seems...

No, people around here are used to having conversations with people who converse like normal human beings and don't need every minute detail expounded upon in every sentence to be able to understand one another.

Quote:

Because evidence or reason are functions of science, but rather the other way around.

You left a 'not' out of the above sentence but amazingly, I still understood it. Wow, I must be a freaking psychic. Anyway...

Science is, at its base, the use of reason to follow evidentiary paths to their conclusions. Evidence is more difficult but we can use sensory input that points to a specific reasonable conclusion until we see a reason why this is an innapropriate definition.

Quote:

Scientific evidence? Or Biblical?

Evidence or Moby Dick evidence?

Evidence can not be biblical evidence. Evidence can only be evidence. If the bible contains evidence towards a specific reasonable conclusion then that is evidence, not biblical evidence, not magical evidence, not evidence as I see it to be evidence in my own personal relative understanding of existence.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

So please. Don't assume anything for a second and REALIZE that I'm JUST USING REASONING!

INTERPRET, JUST USING REASONING.

LOGIC IS the practice of inference and deduction from conditions and assumptions.

Quote:

You could not make me question my own senses and whether or not you are trying to is irrelevant. To trust one's senses is not something one chooses to believe as I have explained to you, and you have failed to understand. It is a necessity of one's ability to function. That is not a choice. Reason is the tool by which I translate all sensory input. I do not choose to be a human who reasons. It is simply the tool by which a human experiences its existence. To choose not to trust it would be impossible. That you can not seem to understand this makes me question your reasoning ability.

Agreed. You would not be able to function without believing that you're able to function in the first place.

...well, I mean you could, but you'd be irrational.

Quote:

The bible is not evidence of a god being a necessary condition for the universe to exist. The bible is a book. Books are only evidence for authors, printers, paper, language, etc.. Do you mean something written in the bible is evidence? Explain why you think this to be evidence and we can look into it. The bible says a lot of things. Do you mean because the bible says a dude named Jesus was cruxified you think god exists as a necessary condition for the existence of the universe? You are going to have to be more specific.

THINK FROM A LOGICAL STANDPOINT.NOT A SCIENTIFIC ONE.AND IF you want to speak from a scientific one, SPECIFY IT.

BUT DON'T THINK that just because you say and BELIEVE that EVIDENCE can only be something which is scientifically observable, and RATIONALITY is ONLY a FUNCTION of SCIENTIFIC REASONING, that YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY CORRECT.

Quote:

Or did you mean scientific evidence?

Quote:

All evidence is scientific in its nature.

I'm sensing a circle.

Think this way. Prove to me that the all evidence is scientific by nature.

UNLESS you go to science books at point out what science ACCEPTS as evidence-- you WILL BE unable to do so.I'M NOT even conceeding that you can do this. BUT, if you could, it would be science books proving evidence is scientific by nature.

JUST LIKE, the bible is used to prove that evidence is not scientific by nature.

YOU COULD USE: THE DICTIONARY: to try and prove from a source outside of science itself that evidence MUST BE scientific by nature.

BUT, THE DICTIONARY: A LIST OF OBJECTIVELY ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS: does not denote that EVIDENCE MUST BE SCIENTIFIC.

THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE I CAN RECALL MY DREAMS WHEN I AWAKEN from sleep is EVIDENCE that I HAVE DREAMS WHILE I SLEEP.

SCIENCE MAY BE ABLE to prove that I have DREAMS (through scientific means-- machines, methods, that would quantify my thoughts while asleep), but they WOULD NOT accept my claims TO BE evidence of "LOVE."

EVEN AS IF is said, I've seen GOD. Would not constitute EVIDENCE within science.

THIS, DOES NOT, CHANGE, THE FACT, THAT, ACCORDING to OBJECTIVE DEFINITION of EVIDENCE, MY ABILITY TO RECALL WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE DREAMS WHILE I SLEEP is EVIDENCE, TO ME, that I HAVE DREAMS.

It just isn't very convincing evidence unless you accept the assumption that the ability to recall something NECESSITATES what you recall's ACTUALITY.

YOUR experience is EVIDENCE for YOU, NOT necessarily ME. And vise versa.

Quote:

No, people around here are used to having conversations with people who converse like normal human beings and don't need every minute detail expounded upon in every sentence to be able to understand one another.

I WOULD CONTEND that you don't in many cases understand each other EVEN THOUGH you believe you do.

The mere fact that most conversations come down to:

I'm rational. No your not. Look at the bible. Bibles not evidence. Yes it is. No its not. Yes it is. Prove it. Look at the Bible. The bible can't be used to prove itself. Yes it can.

..IS EVIDENCE that you DON'T.

Quote:

Because evidence or reason are functions of science, but rather the other way around.

Quote:

You left a 'not' out of the above sentence but amazingly, I still understood it. Wow, I must be a freaking psychic. Anyway...

Congratulations.

Quote:

Science is, at its base, the use of reason to follow evidentiary paths to their conclusions.

You should be saying.. "to their scientific conclusions."

Because as you've stated many a times, science cannot follow evidentiary paths to a conclusion that involves what is perceived to be supernatural.

OTHERWISE INTELLIGENT DESIGN would be considered a scientific theory.

WHICH it is not. (If I understand science correctly, in the aspect, that the conclusion of a scientific theory cannot be it was "supernatural.&quot

Quote:

Evidence is more difficult but we can use sensory input that points to a specific reasonable conclusion until we see a reason why this is an innapropriate definition.

This sentence is so convoluted, I can't be sure what you're saying.

I can make a guess.

"Evidence is more difficult to define. We can us sensory input that points to a specific conclusion until we see a reason why this is an innapropiate definition."

That still doesn't make any sense.

So I have no idea.

Quote:

Scientific evidence? Or Biblical?

Quote:

Evidence or Moby Dick evidence?

LOVE.

Use EVIDENCE as you restrict it, to reasonably conclude that it exists.

Science does not allow you to conclude emotion so it would not allow you to even begin.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE does not conclude that one INTENDED to kill one, only that he DID IT.

Your ACTIONS, your CLAIMS, would be accepted as EVIDENCE (in the scientific community) to conclude that one who CLAIMS to be in LOVE, ACTS in this way.

NOT conclude that YOU DO.

SCIENCE DOES NOT SAY:"Oh, look at all these human beings. Look at how they kill eachother in war. Look at how they steal things. This is evidence that humans are ANGRY, or SAD, or etc."

THE CONCLUSION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.. so the conclusion cannot be considered a valid goal in science.

Quote:

Evidence can not be biblical evidence. Evidence can only be evidence. If the bible contains evidence towards a specific reasonable conclusion then that is evidence, not biblical evidence, not magical evidence, not evidence as I see it to be evidence in my own personal relative understanding of existence.

If you still come to this same thinking at the end, so be it,

However, I would much rather you just conceed that how you live your life in a certain respect is this: I ASSUME SCIENCE is VALID. I ASSUME that SCIENCE NECESSITATES that GOD DOES NOT EXISTS. I ASSUME that ANYONE WHO DOES NOT assume like me to be IRRATIONAL.

Then I will accept, according to your definition, why you think theists must be irrational-- even though, you would be using the word objectively INCORRECT.

There is no such category of reason and logic. Reason and logic arent categorized into scientifically accepted and non scientifically accepted.

Quote:

So please. Don't assume anything for a second and REALIZE that I'm JUST USING REASONING!

INTERPRET, JUST USING REASONING.

LOGIC IS the practice of inference and deduction from conditions and assumptions.

Capitalization should be used sparingly. It really has no affect aside from making the writing look jumbled and incoherent.

We are not discussing logic, we are discussing reasoning. Reasoning is the way in which we humans translate our existence. It is what you use when you question whether or not you are reasoning. It is axiomatic as you can not even ask any question in the first place without using it. So without using reasoning you can't even consider reasoning. It is beyond question.

Reasoning can lead you to logic, but it is not synonymous with logic.

Rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

You could not make me question my own senses and whether or not you are trying to is irrelevant. To trust one's senses is not something one chooses to believe as I have explained to you, and you have failed to understand. It is a necessity of one's ability to function. That is not a choice. Reason is the tool by which I translate all sensory input. I do not choose to be a human who reasons. It is simply the tool by which a human experiences its existence. To choose not to trust it would be impossible. That you can not seem to understand this makes me question your reasoning ability.

Agreed. You would not be able to function without believing that you're able to function in the first place.

That is my point. You don't need to believe that you are able to function in order to function. It is a necessity that you are able to function to even consider whether or not to believe anything. You must function in the first place to be able to consider whether or not you should believe you are able to function. There is no choice.

Rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

The bible is not evidence of a god being a necessary condition for the universe to exist. The bible is a book. Books are only evidence for authors, printers, paper, language, etc.. Do you mean something written in the bible is evidence? Explain why you think this to be evidence and we can look into it. The bible says a lot of things. Do you mean because the bible says a dude named Jesus was cruxified you think god exists as a necessary condition for the existence of the universe? You are going to have to be more specific.

I actually got a bit irked by this one. I will try again:

Hmm.

Quote:

THE BIBLE NECESSITATES certain other beliefs if you accept the bible.

Why accept the bible?

Quote:

If Bible True => God

Why accept the bible as true?

Quote:

EVEN AS,

ACCEPTING SCIENCE NECESSITATES certain other beliefs if you accept science.

What beliefs?

Quote:

IF SCIENCE TRUE as is => scientific conclusions.

No scientific claim is proven one hundred percent. Science can not do such a thing. Science is merely following evidence and coming to reasoned conclusions. It requires no belief simply to follow the evidence and use reason. No one need accept scientific conclusions to use science or to follow where science leads. But once science takes you to where it leads the conclusion is there. In other words, once you have followed the evidence using reason, to not believe the conclusion would be irrational.

Science at its foundation is simply a natural product of human reasoning. It is simply explaining existence as humans experience existence. What do I need to believe to do this. And don't say I need to believe in how I experience existence because as I have explained above that is not so.

Quote:

THINK FROM A LOGICAL STANDPOINT.NOT A SCIENTIFIC ONE.AND IF you want to speak from a scientific one, SPECIFY IT.

Logic has nothing to do with it aside from being able to show what is necessarily contradictory as far as human reason is concerned. I don't even know what you mean by think from a logical standpoint as logic, in and of itself, can not answer any question. If one is thinking, one is thinking from a logical standpoint. They may be thinking of an illogical conclusion but there thinking is necessarily logical. I can't think and not think at the same time.

Quote:

BUT DON'T THINK that just because you say and BELIEVE that EVIDENCE can only be something which is scientifically observable, and RATIONALITY is ONLY a FUNCTION of SCIENTIFIC REASONING, that YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY CORRECT.

Evidence is only something one observes, that is a necessity. You need to do more than assert in all caps, you need to show an example of how you can consider something evidence if you have never observed that something. I've never observed a gawwdar, therefor it is not eviedence of anything. Well, now I've observed the word so the word is evidence of something, but before I made it up it wasn't evidence of anything.

We can also say that just because we can observe something does not mean it is evidence of any specific thing which we desire it to be evidence of. My car is not evidenced of the eixistence of Cher.

Rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

All evidence is scientific in its nature.

I'm sensing a circle.

Do you consider the circle you are sensing evidence of a god?

Quote:

Think this way. Prove to me that the all evidence is scientific by nature.

If it is evidence then it is something I am using to lead, through reasoning, to a rational conclusion. If I am not doing so, it is not evidence. If I can observe it and reason something from it, then that is performing science. If I can't observe it and reasoning something from it, then it is not evidence of anything. Not all science is physical science of course. But you couldn't have been thinking that could you?

Quote:

JUST LIKE, the bible is used to prove that evidence is not scientific by nature.

You still have not shown the bible to be evidence of anything or to prove anything in particular.

Quote:

YOU COULD USE: THE DICTIONARY: to try and prove from a source outside of science itself that evidence MUST BE scientific by nature.

The dictionary doesn't prove anything. That is not its purpose.

Quote:

BUT, THE DICTIONARY: A LIST OF OBJECTIVELY ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS: does not denote that EVIDENCE MUST BE SCIENTIFIC.

If it is not going to be used to come to a conclusion, then it isn't evidence.

Quote:

THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE I CAN RECALL MY DREAMS WHEN I AWAKEN from sleep is EVIDENCE that I HAVE DREAMS WHILE I SLEEP.

Not to anyone aside from you it isn't. And if you have to believe you can recall something you need to see a psych. No one else can use reason to know whether or not you had a dream or if you are simply making it up.

Quote:

SCIENCE MAY BE ABLE to prove that I have DREAMS (through scientific means-- machines, methods, that would quantify my thoughts while asleep), but they WOULD NOT accept my claims TO BE evidence IN THEMSELVES.

Because they would not be evidence from anyone else's perspective. All evidence is not necessarilly universal.

Quote:

EVEN AS IF is said, I've seen GOD. Would not constitute EVIDENCE within science.

It is not evidence. That is correct. It may be evidence to you, but if you don't follow the evidence to a reasoned conclusion then it is not evidence. Show me the trail of evidence that leads you to believe what you saw was god and I could show a trail of evidence that has another explanation and we could see which explanation is better supported by the evidence. Even if it ends up in the favor that what you saw was a god there is no other reason for anyone else to believe your claim. Your claim is not evidence to anyone else without being supported by other obsevable things.

Quote:

THIS, DOES NOT, CHANGE, THE FACT, THAT, ACCORDING to OBJECTIVE DEFINITION of EVIDENCE, MY ABILITY TO RECALL WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE DREAMS WHILE I SLEEP is EVIDENCE, TO ME, that I HAVE DREAMS.

Sure, it may be evidence to you. It would be a scientific claim, from your perspective, that you can recall dreams from your sleep. You would take the evidence that you recall things happening, but that you were asleep while they happened. That they sometimes didn't conform to what you would normally consider reality. That others have told you of similar instances where they have experienced the same phenomenon. You have heard this phenomenon referred to as a dream. You reach a conclusion. I am recalling a dream.

Now if you reached a conclusion that you were recalling things that actually happened to you, even though they did not conform to what happens in reality as you normally know it, say you were flying, and even though you knew that you had been asleep at that point, you would not be doing so because of evidence. You would be doing so irrationally. No matter how strongly you believed this conclusion you had reached to be correct and supported by evidence, the lack of supporting evidence for this conclusion would make it so that anyone else hearing your claim should, using reason, immediately reject it and consider you to be being irrational. If, at a later time, you could support this claim then that would change. But unless you could support your contention that you did fly, your belief that you had evidence that you were flying would not actually be evidence of you flying, no matter how much you believed it to be.

Quote:

It just isn't very convincing evidence unless you accept the assumption that the ability to recall something NECESSITATES what you recall's ACTUALITY.

It isn't evidence at all to anyone but you. But to you it is great evidence of something as long as you use reason to come to a rational conclusion.

Quote:

YOUR experience is EVIDENCE for YOU, NOT necessarily ME. And vise versa.

As long as you apply reasoning to that evidence and follow it to a rational conclusion.

Quote:

I WOULD CONTEND that you don't in many cases understand each other EVEN THOUGH you believe you do.

The mere fact that most conversations come down to:

I'm rational. No your not. Look at the bible. Bibles not evidence. Yes it is. No its not. Yes it is. Prove it. Look at the Bible. The bible can't be used to prove itself. Yes it can.

..IS EVIDENCE that you DON'T.

Actually, it is evidence that there is disagreement not that there is misunderstanding. You misinterpreted the evidence, which may be where we find the problem. One side is right and one is wrong. Both sides can not be right on the existence, or correctness in the belief of the existence, of a god or gods, so understanding each other has nothing to do with it. Correctness and incorrectness do. The theists just refuse to listen to reason.

:P

Vessel wrote:

You left a 'not' out of the above sentence but amazingly, I still understood it. Wow, I must be a freaking psychic. Anyway...

Rhad wrote:

Congratulations.

Its easy. You should try it some time.

Quote:

You should be saying.. "to their scientific conclusions." Because as you've stated many a times, science cannot follow evidentiary paths to a conclusion that involves what is perceived to be supernatural.

I have stated no such thing. I have clearly said that if another type of existence is found which is supernatural then there should be no reason why evidence could not lead there.

Quote:

OTHERWISE INTELLIGENT DESIGN would be considered a scientific theory.

The fact that evidence does not point to such a designer keeps it from being scientific.

Quote:

WHICH it is not. (If I understand science correctly, in the aspect, that the conclusion of a scientific theory cannot be it was "supernatural.&quot

Source?

It must be testable and falsifiable to be considered a scientific theory, but I have never heard supernatural being excluded. The fact that there is no evidence that anything supernatural exists makes it so that right now supernatural existence is not a reasonable conclusion, and makes such conclusions untestable and unfalsifiable, but it is not excluded from ever being so that I know of.

Rhad wrote:

Vessel wrote:

Evidence is more difficult but we can use sensory input that points to a specific reasonable conclusion until we see a reason why this is an innapropriate definition.

This sentence is so convoluted, I can't be sure what you're saying.

I can make a guess.

"Evidence is more difficult to define. We can us sensory input that points to a specific conclusion until we see a reason why this is an innapropiate definition."

Well it has to be reasonable. It can't just be any old specific conclusion. I have already said my car is not evidence of Cher. If that was the case I could say that my shoe is evidence of cockroaches wanting to take over Manhattan.

Evidence: sensory input that points to a specific reasonable conclusion.

Quote:

LOVE.

Use EVIDENCE as you restrict it, to reasonably conclude that it exists.

Science does not allow you to conclude emotion so it would not allow you to even begin.

There are chemical receptors and such, reward centers in the brain that account for emotions. Besides it is very much like what I explained with your dream. I see no problem for science there.

Quote:

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE does not conclude that one INTENDED to kill one, only that he DID IT.

Evidence never concludes anything. Where did you get that? It points to specific reasonable conclusions. Evidence can definitely point to whether or not one intended to kill one.

Quote:

Your ACTIONS, your CLAIMS, would be accepted as EVIDENCE (in the scientific community) to conclude that one who CLAIMS to be in LOVE, ACTS in this way.

NOT conclude that YOU DO.

That doesn't effect the fact that you come to the conclusion that you feel love scientificaly. No body else can come to a conclusion that you feel love. Though evidence can point towards the conclusion that you act as if you feel love.

Quote:

SCIENCE DOES NOT SAY:"Oh, look at all these human beings. Look at how they kill eachother in war. Look at how they steal things. This is evidence that humans are ANGRY, or SAD, or etc."

No, but the humans know what they are based on reasoning and evidence. They feel a certain way, which is evidence to reason that they are what is commonly referred to as sad. They take the evidence and interpret it with reason. All evidence is not universal. In truth it has to do with the chemicals that are being released in the brain and the synapses that are firing at that time.

Social scientists can also ask them questions and use their answers and their actions as evidence to point to a specific conclusion as to why they are warring.

Quote:

THE CONCLUSION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.. so the conclusion cannot be considered a valid goal in science.

There are no valid goals. Only evidenced conclusions.

Quote:

If you still come to this same thinking at the end, so be it,

However, I would much rather you just conceed that how you live your life in a certain respect is this: I ASSUME SCIENCE is VALID. I ASSUME that SCIENCE NECESSITATES that GOD DOES NOT EXISTS. I ASSUME that ANYONE WHO DOES NOT assume like me to be IRRATIONAL.

This isn't even my position. I have never claimed that science necessitates that a god doesn't exist. I have simply said that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god and without said evidence to believe in one's existence is irrational. I still consider that a true statement.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

No need to respond to my last comment. I am going to stop posting on this board due to a recent action of the owner/owners. Anyway, the conversation was intersting and for the most part civil. Thanks for that. Good luck in finding out whatever is you are hoping to find out.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

There is no such category of reason and logic. Reason and logic arent categorized into scientifically accepted and non scientifically accepted.

Science:"Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method[Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning.[1]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.], as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

These fields are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions."

This is the reasoning behind science. If I am in the realm of science, to be reasonable in its eyes, I must follow these rules and theorize in accordance with them.

I AM NOT restricted, in the same sense, when I am not within the realm of making a scientific theory or making a scientific argument.

I can state reason to believe that pigs fly; science would not accept my reason because they would lie outside of these limitations.

Scientifically acceptable REASON.

Quote:

We are not discussing logic, we are discussing reasoning.

Look up the definition of reasoning and logic. Take a dictionary, one that exists outside of your head, and read it.

Quote:

Reasoning is the way in which we humans translate our existence.

Yup.

Quote:

It is what you use when you question whether or not you are reasoning. It is axiomatic as you can not even ask any question in the first place without using it.

I cannot question it without being definitively 'irrational' since logic is a function of reasoning.

Quote:

Reasoning can lead you to logic, but it is not synonymous with logic.

They are not synonymous, true.

BUT,

If logical then reasoning.This of course does not mean.If reasoning then logical.

Which is why they are not synonymous.

However. IF you are using another form of reasoning besides logic.. let me know.. that would clear up a whole host of confusions.

Quote:

That is my point. You don't need to believe that you are able to function in order to function. It is a necessity that you are able to function to even consider whether or not to believe anything. You must function in the first place to be able to consider whether or not you should believe you are able to function. There is no choice.

But.. where does rationality come into play with these choices? It's a choice. Whether it's based on a reasoning is not stated, and whether that reasoning is logical, has not been stated either.

Quote:

EVEN AS,

ACCEPTING SCIENCE NECESSITATES certain other beliefs if you accept science.

Quote:

What beliefs?

That scientific law states gravity as a function of matter.That scientific law states that aggregate matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.Etc.

These are beliefs necessitated by accepting scientific principal as it now resides.

Quote:

IF SCIENCE TRUE as is => scientific conclusions.

Quote:

No scientific claim is proven one hundred percent. Science can not do such a thing. Science is merely following evidence and coming to reasoned conclusions.

"SCIENTIFICALLY acceptable evidence."

And I never said it did. This conditional statement means "If SCIENCE TRUE as is, then scientific conclusions.

Not a particular scientific conclusion.. just the possibility to have a scientific conclusion.

Get it this small point at least?

Quote:

It requires no belief simply to follow the evidence and use reason.

"SCIENTIFICALLY acceptable evidence."

Quote:

No one need accept scientific conclusions to use science or to follow where science leads.

You stating a conditional statement as if I stated it. I did not state this conditional statement.

When did I say:IF able to FOLLOW science or USE science => accept scientific conclusions (?).

Never stated that.

Quote:

But once science takes you to where it leads the conclusion is there. In other words, once you have followed the evidence using reason, to not believe the conclusion would be irrational.

You keep on using evidence and "scientifically acceptable evidence" interchangeably.

AS well as,

Irrational and "scientifically irrational."

By the way. Science has made many conclusions on how an atom works and why they reflect light. Even as their are many scientific conclusions as to how the universe came to be, and out moons, and the planets.

Does this mean that if I refuse to accept one of these conclusions (many of which co-exist as conclusions of Science, even though they could not both have happened) that I am irrational?

Because Science leads a person to a conclusion does not mean that Science has concluded (brought to conclusion, finality, an end to) the matter.

Get this point?

Quote:

Science at its foundation is simply a natural product of human reasoning.

Never stated anything different. It is not however, the only product of human reasoning.

Quote:

It is simply explaining existence as humans experience existence.

As humanity experiences it. Not how humans (which would imply individuals) experience it.

As I stated before. Science, I don't believe anyways, will be able to explain consciousness outside of the idea that it is organized release of electrical charges within the brain.Scientific Idea is as follows.If person is conscious => organized release of electrical charges within the brain.

It does not state.

IF (X) => conscious.

It explains part of what conscious is with scientifically allowed terms.

It does not necessarily explain it what it is.

It is only considered to be a necessary condition for consciousness.. it is not however, sufficient.

(If you don't understand necessary and sufficient conditions.. think of it this way.

If water => hydrogen.Water is sufficient condition. Hydrogen is the necessary.You can't have water without hydrogen if you accept this conditional statement.

That does not mean that hydrogen is sufficient for water.Because.. well.. you can have hydrogen and it just be hydrogen, not water.)

Unless you think the idea of consciousness to be as simple as organized release of electrical charges within the brain.

In which case that's fine. But not scientific. Unless you have scientifically acceptable evidence as a basis for this claim besides just this one piece which shows that the lack of something equates to a lack of consciousness.

Unless I missed something in the past few years and scientists have now been able to make a brain, hook up some eyes, hook up a mouth, mimic organized release of electrical charges, and the thing showed qualities of consciousness.

Quote:

What do I need to believe to do this. And don't say I need to believe in how I experience existence because as I have explained above that is not so.

You need only make a choice to do so.Even as you made a choice to accept what the science teacher (or book, or writings, or whatever) told you about science.

Once again. We are talking about rationality. Not truth.

Quote:

THINK FROM A LOGICAL STANDPOINT.NOT A SCIENTIFIC ONE.AND IF you want to speak from a scientific one, SPECIFY IT.

Quote:

Logic has nothing to do with it aside from being able to show what is necessarily contradictory as far as human reason is concerned. I don't even know what you mean by think from a logical standpoint as logic, in and of itself, can not answer any question.

Cannot give a truth statement.Always gives a rational one.

Get the distinction. If its logical to use the bible as evidence that God exists, it is rational.

It may not be truth and it may not be the independently verifiable answer that it is truth.

But that doesn't make it any less rational.

Quote:

If one is thinking, one is thinking from a logical standpoint.

Okay. That's why I asked earlier.. since it seemed you to be implying, earlier, that there was some other form of thinking.

That somehow you could reason without being logical.Or that you could be logical with being reasonable.

You conceeded the self-evident fact that one must reason in order to function.

So.. if you assume also that one cannot think without thinking from a logical standpoint.

How exactly are they different?

Why would they could they not be used interchangeably?

Why can I not say what is illogical is irrational; and what is rational is logical; and what is logical is rational; and what is irrational is illogical;and what is reason is logic; and what is logic is reason; and what is reasoning is logic-ing; and what is logic-ing is reasoning.

Quote:

Reasoning can lead you to logic, but it is not synonymous with logic.

Quote:

Reasoning is the way in which we humans translate our existence.

Quote:

It is axiomatic as you can not even ask any question in the first place without using it (reason).

Quote:

If one is thinking, one is thinking from a logical standpoint.

Quote:

They may be thinking of an illogical conclusion but there thinking is necessarily logical.

Quote:

Evidence is only something one observes, that is a necessity.

I observe the Bible.

Quote:

I've never observed a gawwdar, therefore it is not eviedence of anything. Well, now I've observed the word so the word is evidence of something.

Yup. The Bible is evidence of something.

What I choose to say is irrelevant to the fact that it is evidence to something.

It may not be 'sufficient evidence' however.. only 'sufficient evidence' that the word exists in your mind.

This is a good point to end on.

Wait.. one more.

Quote:

YOU COULD USE: THE DICTIONARY: to try and prove from a source outside of science itself that evidence MUST BE scientific by nature.

Quote:

The dictionary doesn't prove anything. That is not its purpose.

I said you can "try and prove".. I didn't say you could.

Quote:

Because they would not be evidence from anyone else's perspective. All evidence is not necessarilly universal.

Yup.

So if all I need is evidence and/or reason to get logically to a conclusion to be considered definitively rational.

How am I not definitively rational when I say I believe in God?

The bible is my evidence/cause/reason.Coupled with the sufficient condition/reason/cause that the universe exists.

Quote:

....no other reason for anyone else to believe your claim.

True.

But.. we're talking about the labeling of theists as irrational. (Which has a much more specific definition then god, and many more rules as to what can be labeled as such.)

This is not about the validity of my "REASONING for anyone else to believe MY claim that God exists"; merely the validity of my REASONING.

Quote:

THIS, DOES NOT, CHANGE, THE FACT, THAT, ACCORDING to OBJECTIVE DEFINITION of EVIDENCE, MY ABILITY TO RECALL WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE DREAMS WHILE I SLEEP is EVIDENCE, TO ME, that I HAVE DREAMS.

Quote:

YOUR experience is EVIDENCE for YOU, NOT necessarily ME. And vise versa.

Quote:

As long as you apply reasoning to that evidence and follow it to a rational conclusion.

Rational/Logically.

Quote:

I WOULD CONTEND that you don't in many cases understand each other EVEN THOUGH you believe you do.The mere fact that most conversations come down to:I'm rational. No your not. Look at the bible. Bibles not evidence. Yes it is. No its not. Yes it is. Prove it. Look at the Bible. The bible can't be used to prove itself. Yes it can...IS EVIDENCE that you DON'T.

Quote:

Actually, it is evidence that there is disagreement not that there is misunderstanding.

It's evidence for both.

Quote:

Both sides can not be right on the existence, or correctness in the belief of the existence, of a god or gods, so understanding each other has nothing to do with it.

True. But both sides can be right with regards to reason/logic.

Quote:

The fact that evidence does not point to such a designer keeps it from being scientific.

The fact that the conclusion is unscientific keeps it from being scientific.

Not because the evidence doesn't point to a designer.

It does.

Even as it points to the big bang theory.

It does.

Even as it points to e=mc2.

It does.

Even as it points to..... __________.

Quote:

It must be testable and falsifiable to be considered a scientific theory, but I have never heard supernatural being excluded.

It's not excluded because science cannot consider it by definition of it being supernatural.

Since WE ourselves are bound by what is natural.. to say that something is SUPERnatural would be to say that it is outside of what is falsifiable and testable for us.

There are chemical receptors and such, reward centers in the brain that account for emotions. Besides it is very much like what I explained with your dream. I see no problem for science there.

See above. Science will only go so far as to say what is necessary in order to feel love. Not what is sufficient.

Quote:

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE does not conclude that one INTENDED to kill one, only that he DID IT.

Quote:

Evidence never concludes anything. Where did you get that? It points to specific reasonable conclusions. Evidence can definitely point to whether or not one intended to kill one.

Conclude and "point to" are not the same thing.It's the difference between necessary and sufficient.

Yes. Scientific evidence can "point to" whether or not one intended to kill one.

"SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE"

not

"EVIDENCE"

By using "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" I am restricting the term to the realm of science.

Science defines something as dead.

Science restricts the idea of casuality.

Therefore, scientific evidence would conclude that something is dead, that something particular killed it, that a particular action caused that something, and.. if their was verifiable evidence that one did that action-- he would be concluded to have "DID IT."

Quote:

This isn't even my position.

I said IF, or I'd RATHER, you claimed it so that I could understand where you're coming from.

Quote:

I have simply said that there is no evidence

As you have defined it in this post, you have said there is evidence. Just none you would consider 'sufficient.'

Quote:

.. to support the existence of a god and without said evidence to believe in one's existence is irrational.

On a lighter note.

A man with a tophat and a mustache just walked into my room and told me I could not pass go.